This morning on NBC news, I saw a story that was affectionately called "yogurt-gate." (I couldn't find a link to the NBC story, but here's a link to a similar story)
It seems a group of college students in Denver, Co. were close to the President and shaking his hand as he went by. Suddenly, the President's pants were covered with yogurt. The story tells that the young woman (later identified as Kolbi Zerbest) spilled the yogurt.
In the interview this morning, Miss Zerbest explained that she had placed her yogurt on a pole and the paparazzi hit the pole, spilling the yogurt. She also said that "technically, it was (her) fault."
So, who's responsible? Miss Zerbest accepted the responsibility. Why would I bother to blog about this? Because I want people to realize that they have responsibility. When Miss Zerbest purchased the yogurt, she became responsible for it. She should have placed it in a location where it was safe.
Spilling yogurt, even on the President, isn't a big deal, but too often people don't accept responsibility. Instead they quickly say "it wasn't my fault." I have to confess, I've even been guilty of this at times. But if you accept responsibility, and treat every situation as potentially volatile, you might not spill your yogurt.
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Thursday, November 03, 2011
God helps those who help themselves
Did he really say that? Yes, he did. (see here for text). To be fair, it wasn't the president, it was his spokesman. And he corrected it later in the day. And many people use this same mis-quote much of the time.
The president actually said "God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work." I think it's interesting that he thinks God wants us to help ourselves, but by that he means the government helping us. But then I've always said that we're not electing a theologian in chief. I occasionally had problems with the previous president's theology and I'm sure I'll have problems from time to time with the next president as well.
This all brings me to my point. Over the next year, many of the candidates will say things that they don't have a chance to think through. Look beyond that. What is he really trying to say? What does his record say? What does he say in position speeches and papers? Those really determine what the person will do if he reaches office.
I'm not surprised that President Obama thinks that God wants the government to step in and help people who need jobs. This has been his approach all along. You may agree with the idea and you may disagree. But you shouldn't be surprised.
The president actually said "God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work." I think it's interesting that he thinks God wants us to help ourselves, but by that he means the government helping us. But then I've always said that we're not electing a theologian in chief. I occasionally had problems with the previous president's theology and I'm sure I'll have problems from time to time with the next president as well.
This all brings me to my point. Over the next year, many of the candidates will say things that they don't have a chance to think through. Look beyond that. What is he really trying to say? What does his record say? What does he say in position speeches and papers? Those really determine what the person will do if he reaches office.
I'm not surprised that President Obama thinks that God wants the government to step in and help people who need jobs. This has been his approach all along. You may agree with the idea and you may disagree. But you shouldn't be surprised.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Help for homeowners
Yesterday, President Obama unveiled a "new" plan to help home-owners who may be able to benefit from re-financing (see article here). From what I have read, I think the program is good, but I'm not sure how successful it may be.
The program is designed as an aid to homeowners who want to refinance and take advantage of today's lower rates. Nothing that I have read says it will reduce the amount of the loan, only the interest rate. Let's say someone took out a loan on a $300,000 home in 2004 with a rate of 5.5%. If they had chosen a fixed rate, that's a payment of about $1700. If they can refinance to a 4% loan today, that's a payment of about $1430 and leaves $270 in their pocket.
So who loses the $270? Well, the new program is for people whose loans are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mach, so they are obvious losers in the deal. Also, banks may lose as older loans are paid off earlier. However, banks will get some refinance $$ in their pocket as well as a better loan. If the old loan defaulted, banks were sure to lose.
So what is the down-side to the program? Well, refinancing costs money and some of that burden will be paid by the tax payer. I don't think that's a lot of money (compared to loan defaults), so I think this is a good program overall.
Trouble is, it doesn't address the amount owed. In my example above, I assumed the entire $300,000 would be refinanced. In reality, if they were current, they would only owe $262,000 at this point. But the problem comes in that the value of the house may have dropped. The house may only be worth $200,000 now and in that case, they wouldn't be able to refinance. under today's rules, but would be able to under the new rules.
The program looks like it helps out some people in certain circumstances and therefore I have no objection to it. I'm not overly excited, because it doesn't seem like it will affect many people. Maybe the president is trying to tackle the economic issues in small bites rather than a sweeping program that no one can pass.
The program is designed as an aid to homeowners who want to refinance and take advantage of today's lower rates. Nothing that I have read says it will reduce the amount of the loan, only the interest rate. Let's say someone took out a loan on a $300,000 home in 2004 with a rate of 5.5%. If they had chosen a fixed rate, that's a payment of about $1700. If they can refinance to a 4% loan today, that's a payment of about $1430 and leaves $270 in their pocket.
So who loses the $270? Well, the new program is for people whose loans are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mach, so they are obvious losers in the deal. Also, banks may lose as older loans are paid off earlier. However, banks will get some refinance $$ in their pocket as well as a better loan. If the old loan defaulted, banks were sure to lose.
So what is the down-side to the program? Well, refinancing costs money and some of that burden will be paid by the tax payer. I don't think that's a lot of money (compared to loan defaults), so I think this is a good program overall.
Trouble is, it doesn't address the amount owed. In my example above, I assumed the entire $300,000 would be refinanced. In reality, if they were current, they would only owe $262,000 at this point. But the problem comes in that the value of the house may have dropped. The house may only be worth $200,000 now and in that case, they wouldn't be able to refinance. under today's rules, but would be able to under the new rules.
The program looks like it helps out some people in certain circumstances and therefore I have no objection to it. I'm not overly excited, because it doesn't seem like it will affect many people. Maybe the president is trying to tackle the economic issues in small bites rather than a sweeping program that no one can pass.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The President's teleprompter is stolen
I know, this sounds like a joke. It's not. It's true. To be fair, it wasn't just a teleprompter, it was a truck which contained sound equipment, podiums and yes, a teleprompter. The truck was later found in a hotel parking lot several miles away.
This happened about 1/2 mile from the Hampton Inn where I stay when I go to Richmond. I promise, I was no where near where the incident occurred. As for other comments, on the advice of counsel, I have no additional comments at this time.
Click here for the story from Richmond Times Dispatch.
This happened about 1/2 mile from the Hampton Inn where I stay when I go to Richmond. I promise, I was no where near where the incident occurred. As for other comments, on the advice of counsel, I have no additional comments at this time.
Click here for the story from Richmond Times Dispatch.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
The President's job speech - Reaction Part 2
This is a continuation of my previous post on the President's job speech. Part 1 is found here.
We are told that the President's bill (which was not released until days after the speech) will give companies an extra tax credit if they hire veterans. While this is a good idea, I'm not sure this will provide a lot of jobs and I don't think it belongs in a jobs bill. Was it added here so that the President could say that anyone who opposes this bill opposes veterans? I shouldn't be so cynical.
The bill offers "companies... a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job." This is like the HIRE act I mentioned in Part 1 of my review, but it brings up an important point: why not limit unemployment benefits to six months as well? This way, you motivate both the employer and the employee.
The President promises us that the "typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year." This is on top of the $2,000 we have already gotten. Anyone know where this comes from? It comes from Social Security payments we all make through payroll deduction. Someone should point out that this actually helps to remove the illusion that Social Security is anything but a tax.
President Obama promises that "the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit." MSNBC (not exactly an anti-Obama source) in their fact-check of the President's speech explains this by saying "it will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding." To mis-quote President Truman, "the buck stops there" not with the current president.
Finally, about half-way through his speech, the President admits "this approach is basically the one I've been advocating for months." Nothing new. But pass this bill. Right away.
The speech goes on (my printed copy continues for five more pages), but as he said, there's not much new. The programs outlined are programs the President has been pushing for months or extensions of existing programs created and pushed with the last stimulus package. They didn't work then, and they won't work now. Congress should kill this bill. Right away.
We are told that the President's bill (which was not released until days after the speech) will give companies an extra tax credit if they hire veterans. While this is a good idea, I'm not sure this will provide a lot of jobs and I don't think it belongs in a jobs bill. Was it added here so that the President could say that anyone who opposes this bill opposes veterans? I shouldn't be so cynical.
The bill offers "companies... a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job." This is like the HIRE act I mentioned in Part 1 of my review, but it brings up an important point: why not limit unemployment benefits to six months as well? This way, you motivate both the employer and the employee.
The President promises us that the "typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year." This is on top of the $2,000 we have already gotten. Anyone know where this comes from? It comes from Social Security payments we all make through payroll deduction. Someone should point out that this actually helps to remove the illusion that Social Security is anything but a tax.
President Obama promises that "the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit." MSNBC (not exactly an anti-Obama source) in their fact-check of the President's speech explains this by saying "it will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding." To mis-quote President Truman, "the buck stops there" not with the current president.
Finally, about half-way through his speech, the President admits "this approach is basically the one I've been advocating for months." Nothing new. But pass this bill. Right away.
The speech goes on (my printed copy continues for five more pages), but as he said, there's not much new. The programs outlined are programs the President has been pushing for months or extensions of existing programs created and pushed with the last stimulus package. They didn't work then, and they won't work now. Congress should kill this bill. Right away.
Friday, September 30, 2011
The President's job speech - Reaction Part 1
Ok, I'm a little slow in posting my comments to the jobs speech. The President spoke three weeks ago, and I've just gotten around to starting my comments. My apologies if you were waiting. But I promise to complete this fairly quickly. The speech was long, I printed it and it took 10 pages. My response will be long too,
I commented right after the jobs speech that I was glad the President spoke. I should have also said I was impressed with his speech. I was amazed the first time I heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I knew then, that he was going places. He's a good speaker and has good speech writers.
When I read the President's speech (found here), my first impression was that he gets it. He understands. He used words like "an urgent time" and said that we "face an economic crisis." These are strong, but accurate words. He understands that "millions of Americans... don't care about politics," they just want the problem solved. And he understands that the problem is unemployment. If we fix this problem, we fix the economy (and most likely the deficit).
But I begin to have problems when he began to talk about a "compact." He accurately depicted "an America where hard work and responsibility paid off" and where "if you did the right thing, you could make it." But I'm not sure that's a compact. And then he followed by saying that "Washington has not always put [the people's] interests first." While I'm certain that part is true, I'm not sure what, if anything, Washington's role should be in the compact between people and their employers.
After this aside, the President returned to the track that I agree with. He says that "our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers." These kinds of statements give me hope that he may actually see the right way to run this country. But then he began to give details on his plan - The American Jobs Act. He repeatedly tells Congress that they "should pass [this bill] right away." Only there was no bill. For four days. After he had delayed his speech for several days. But right away, they should pass it.
Once President Obama began talking about parts of the to-be-delivered bill, I noticed a familiar refrain. First, he talks about cutting taxes for small businesses that hire new workers. This is similar to the HIRE Act of 2010 that I discussed here. This didn't stimulate hiring then, is there any reason to believe it will work now?
Next the President talks about putting "people to work rebuilding... decaying roads and bridges." Can someone say "shovel ready?" While I do believe transportation costs affect the economy more than any single factor, I don't think that just because "construction companies... [are] waiting to get to work" we should throw good money after bad. This didn't work in the previous stimulus, it won't work now. We may need to rebuild our infrastructure, but let's not call it a jobs program.
President Obama tells us that the American Jobs Act will "repair or modernize at least 35,000 schools." While I agree our schools need help (see here and here for two recent posts on schools), the best help would be for Washington to step away and let the states manage them.
The speech goes on with a promise to "rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hardest hit by foreclosures." Wasn't this tried before? Didn't we pass a Mortgage Reform Act to reduce foreclosures? And how's that working out?
(more notes on the speech to come. Please feel free to comment now or wait).
I commented right after the jobs speech that I was glad the President spoke. I should have also said I was impressed with his speech. I was amazed the first time I heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I knew then, that he was going places. He's a good speaker and has good speech writers.
When I read the President's speech (found here), my first impression was that he gets it. He understands. He used words like "an urgent time" and said that we "face an economic crisis." These are strong, but accurate words. He understands that "millions of Americans... don't care about politics," they just want the problem solved. And he understands that the problem is unemployment. If we fix this problem, we fix the economy (and most likely the deficit).
But I begin to have problems when he began to talk about a "compact." He accurately depicted "an America where hard work and responsibility paid off" and where "if you did the right thing, you could make it." But I'm not sure that's a compact. And then he followed by saying that "Washington has not always put [the people's] interests first." While I'm certain that part is true, I'm not sure what, if anything, Washington's role should be in the compact between people and their employers.
After this aside, the President returned to the track that I agree with. He says that "our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers." These kinds of statements give me hope that he may actually see the right way to run this country. But then he began to give details on his plan - The American Jobs Act. He repeatedly tells Congress that they "should pass [this bill] right away." Only there was no bill. For four days. After he had delayed his speech for several days. But right away, they should pass it.
Once President Obama began talking about parts of the to-be-delivered bill, I noticed a familiar refrain. First, he talks about cutting taxes for small businesses that hire new workers. This is similar to the HIRE Act of 2010 that I discussed here. This didn't stimulate hiring then, is there any reason to believe it will work now?
Next the President talks about putting "people to work rebuilding... decaying roads and bridges." Can someone say "shovel ready?" While I do believe transportation costs affect the economy more than any single factor, I don't think that just because "construction companies... [are] waiting to get to work" we should throw good money after bad. This didn't work in the previous stimulus, it won't work now. We may need to rebuild our infrastructure, but let's not call it a jobs program.
President Obama tells us that the American Jobs Act will "repair or modernize at least 35,000 schools." While I agree our schools need help (see here and here for two recent posts on schools), the best help would be for Washington to step away and let the states manage them.
The speech goes on with a promise to "rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hardest hit by foreclosures." Wasn't this tried before? Didn't we pass a Mortgage Reform Act to reduce foreclosures? And how's that working out?
(more notes on the speech to come. Please feel free to comment now or wait).
Friday, September 09, 2011
Let's Reclaim the Post-9/11 Unity
I was looking for the President's speech from last night. Before I found it, I found this op-ed written by Pres. Obama asking for Americans to "regain the sense of common purpose that stirred in our hearts 10 years ago."
In the op-ed, President Obama also notes "that our differences pale beside what unites us and that when we choose to move forward together, as one American family, the United States doesn't just endure, we can emerge from our tests and trials stronger than before."
Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. I promise to work towards the civility that you, and others have asked for. I'd like you to lead and stop blaming Republicans for everything as I saw in your speeches last week. I'd like you to use your leadership influence and ask those around you to stop bashing Tea Partiers, those in other (or the same) wealth class and whoever the target-du-jour happens to be.
I promise to do my part, will you do yours?
In the op-ed, President Obama also notes "that our differences pale beside what unites us and that when we choose to move forward together, as one American family, the United States doesn't just endure, we can emerge from our tests and trials stronger than before."
Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. I promise to work towards the civility that you, and others have asked for. I'd like you to lead and stop blaming Republicans for everything as I saw in your speeches last week. I'd like you to use your leadership influence and ask those around you to stop bashing Tea Partiers, those in other (or the same) wealth class and whoever the target-du-jour happens to be.
I promise to do my part, will you do yours?
Thursday, September 08, 2011
The President's speech - American Job Act
The president's speech motivates me to start my blog back. I saw some things in the speech that I needed to comment on. I'll wait to comment in detail until I can read the speech, but some things need immediate attention.
My first comment - did you notice that there was no Republican response? Apparently, they read my blog post from January (here) A response tonight would have been premature as President Obama's speech had not been publi8shed. The R's could have written a speech a few days ago, making some guesses about what the president was going to say. Instead the let the president have his say. Hopefully this trend will take off and we won't have a response every time the president speaks.
My second comment is regarding the congressmen who were absent. One of my senators had indicated he would not be there. I think this is disrespectful. While I may not like the current president and don't agree with most of his ideas, I do believe he deserves a certain amount of respect because of his office. I intend to send him a note indicating my displeasure.
I noticed that the president said this bill would be paid for. However, the devil's in the details. He said he would challenge congress with paying for it as a part of their upcoming budget. To me, that sounds like he's hoping they will pay for it.
I noticed that the President did not blame Republicans, past or present, for the problems. Too often he has done that and too often while he's on the campaign trail he complains about Republicans. Hopefully, he won't do this when he starts pushing this bill.
Overall, I did like the fact that the President spoke. I believe this president has been reluctant to lead too many times in the past. Instead this time, he is introducing a bill. I may not agree with it, but at least he's started the process.
I will be reading the jobs act in the near future and will publish my thoughts.
My first comment - did you notice that there was no Republican response? Apparently, they read my blog post from January (here) A response tonight would have been premature as President Obama's speech had not been publi8shed. The R's could have written a speech a few days ago, making some guesses about what the president was going to say. Instead the let the president have his say. Hopefully this trend will take off and we won't have a response every time the president speaks.
My second comment is regarding the congressmen who were absent. One of my senators had indicated he would not be there. I think this is disrespectful. While I may not like the current president and don't agree with most of his ideas, I do believe he deserves a certain amount of respect because of his office. I intend to send him a note indicating my displeasure.
I noticed that the president said this bill would be paid for. However, the devil's in the details. He said he would challenge congress with paying for it as a part of their upcoming budget. To me, that sounds like he's hoping they will pay for it.
I noticed that the President did not blame Republicans, past or present, for the problems. Too often he has done that and too often while he's on the campaign trail he complains about Republicans. Hopefully, he won't do this when he starts pushing this bill.
Overall, I did like the fact that the President spoke. I believe this president has been reluctant to lead too many times in the past. Instead this time, he is introducing a bill. I may not agree with it, but at least he's started the process.
I will be reading the jobs act in the near future and will publish my thoughts.
Friday, August 19, 2011
A different election?
In my reviewing the 2008 election, I saw it as a foregone conclusion. President Obama had been running for the office for over four years and was specifically groomed for the office. Anyone who doubts that should only go back to his 2004 speech at the DNC. He wrote books to carefully lay out his views and everything he did in the Senate was to head him in that direction.
It was a candidate who could not lose. He was in the party that could not lose. The political and economic wind was blowing at the Democrats' back and in the Republicans' face. The war in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan made the Democratic candidate an almost foregone conclusion.
And he was pitted against a candidate who could not win. Sen McCain was not a strong candidate. He admitted openly that he was not an expert in the economy and was more interested in debating than deciding.
Now it's 2012 (well, will be soon). I just heard an interview on WLFJ 660 AM with Michelle Bachmann and I am impressed. (I'm hoping to find the interview on their archives and will post a link here if I find it). Her answer during the debate to the "submit" question was amazing. I've also posted recently about Gov Perry's approach to solving school problems.
It's still early, but it seems to me that the Republicans have a much stronger group of candidates than they did in 2008. Will this be a different election?
It was a candidate who could not lose. He was in the party that could not lose. The political and economic wind was blowing at the Democrats' back and in the Republicans' face. The war in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan made the Democratic candidate an almost foregone conclusion.
And he was pitted against a candidate who could not win. Sen McCain was not a strong candidate. He admitted openly that he was not an expert in the economy and was more interested in debating than deciding.
Now it's 2012 (well, will be soon). I just heard an interview on WLFJ 660 AM with Michelle Bachmann and I am impressed. (I'm hoping to find the interview on their archives and will post a link here if I find it). Her answer during the debate to the "submit" question was amazing. I've also posted recently about Gov Perry's approach to solving school problems.
It's still early, but it seems to me that the Republicans have a much stronger group of candidates than they did in 2008. Will this be a different election?
Friday, May 06, 2011
Thoughts on the death of Bin Laden
By now, you're probably tired if hearing about the death of Bin Laden. If you can stand some more talk, I want to share some of my thoughts.
1) I'm glad he's dead. I still wonder why it took so long. I'm not gloating, I actually would have liked for him to realize the error of his ways. But that wasn't likely. And now, he has finally realized the error of his ways. He knows the Truth.
2) I'm not upset that his body was dumped nor that he was given the Muslim equivalent of last rites. Part of me is, but in reality, I think his body should have been (and was by all accounts was) treated with civility. That's a lot more than he gave to others, but it's the right thing to do.
3) I'm glad the pictures of his body were not released. I see no value in it and a lot of possible problems. I wish the same had been done with pictures of Abu Ghraib. (Hat tip to Cal Thomas). But that happened under a different leader.
4) I've noticed that some newspapers are using the name Bin Laden instead of Osama Bin Laden. I think this is because of the tendency of people to say "Obama" when they mean "Osama". It's tripped up many a commentator.
5) All people, politicians, bloggers, etc. should carefully examine their feelings and what they say to make sure they are consistent. An example of inconsistency would be the comment in September of 2006 "[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. ... And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer."
This was followed this week by the same person with the comment "The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . (His) death ... is historic." (both spoken by Nancy Pelosi and reported here)
1) I'm glad he's dead. I still wonder why it took so long. I'm not gloating, I actually would have liked for him to realize the error of his ways. But that wasn't likely. And now, he has finally realized the error of his ways. He knows the Truth.
2) I'm not upset that his body was dumped nor that he was given the Muslim equivalent of last rites. Part of me is, but in reality, I think his body should have been (and was by all accounts was) treated with civility. That's a lot more than he gave to others, but it's the right thing to do.
3) I'm glad the pictures of his body were not released. I see no value in it and a lot of possible problems. I wish the same had been done with pictures of Abu Ghraib. (Hat tip to Cal Thomas). But that happened under a different leader.
4) I've noticed that some newspapers are using the name Bin Laden instead of Osama Bin Laden. I think this is because of the tendency of people to say "Obama" when they mean "Osama". It's tripped up many a commentator.
5) All people, politicians, bloggers, etc. should carefully examine their feelings and what they say to make sure they are consistent. An example of inconsistency would be the comment in September of 2006 "[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. ... And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer."
This was followed this week by the same person with the comment "The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . (His) death ... is historic." (both spoken by Nancy Pelosi and reported here)
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Has President Obama evolved?
I've been wondering for some time that President Obama has changed in several ways since he first took office. His decision to send Navy Seals into Pakistan was actually "predicted" during the debates with Sen. McCain, so that doesn't really reflect a change. But his decision to use intelligence gathered at Guantanamo Bay, most likely as a result of "enhanced techniques" seems contradictory to his prior attitude.
Keeping Guantanamo Bay open was not entirely the President's decision, but he did not fight hard to keep his earlier promises. Troops have stayed in Iraq longer than he ever intended and he supported a surge in Afghanistan. President Obama even supported a new war (Libya) albeit not to the extent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So my question is, has President Obama evolved in his thinking? Has he come to realize that maybe President Bush wasn't as far off the mark as the current president believed when he was campaigning?
And most importantly, if his attitude on these things have changed, can it be changed in other areas? Might we see a move to less government? Might we see the removal of Obamacare? Might we see a return to his campaign attitude of "it's above my paygrade"?
Keeping Guantanamo Bay open was not entirely the President's decision, but he did not fight hard to keep his earlier promises. Troops have stayed in Iraq longer than he ever intended and he supported a surge in Afghanistan. President Obama even supported a new war (Libya) albeit not to the extent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So my question is, has President Obama evolved in his thinking? Has he come to realize that maybe President Bush wasn't as far off the mark as the current president believed when he was campaigning?
And most importantly, if his attitude on these things have changed, can it be changed in other areas? Might we see a move to less government? Might we see the removal of Obamacare? Might we see a return to his campaign attitude of "it's above my paygrade"?
Monday, May 02, 2011
Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead *Updated *
I don't mean to minimize the death of Osama Bin Laden by the silly title. Instead, a part of me wants to celebrate, just as the munchkins in The Wizard of Oz. After 10+ years of being America's Enemy #1, OBL has been eliminated.
My hat goes off to the Navy Seals who took care of the matter. I wish that Marcus Luttrell could have been in on the final operation (see his story here and I highly recommend this book).
I listed to most of the President's speech (TV/DVR errors made me miss part of the middle) and have read the speech this morning. I think he was "spot on". This is a significant event. There may be some reprisals from Al Qaeda (I expect there will be). The war on terror is not over.
I was especially impressed that President Obama took the time to call President Bush (and possibly President Clinton). The former president(s) deserved that. It's a show of respect from the current to the former.
There are lots of questions that should be answered. What took so long? Why did one helicopter have problems? Who will take over Al Qaeda actions and what will our attitude be towards him? But for today, and maybe tomorrow, we should all recognize that this event was significant. I listened to a local conservative radio personality this morning and was glad that he felt the same way. No bashing of the current (or former) president. No complaints. Job well done.
* Update * Just heard the Cal Thomas commentary on local radio. Thomas used the same title for today's commentary (5/4/11). I didn't know Mr. Thomas read my blog, but I'm pleased he used it. Hopefully he will share his fees for the day with me...
My hat goes off to the Navy Seals who took care of the matter. I wish that Marcus Luttrell could have been in on the final operation (see his story here and I highly recommend this book).
I listed to most of the President's speech (TV/DVR errors made me miss part of the middle) and have read the speech this morning. I think he was "spot on". This is a significant event. There may be some reprisals from Al Qaeda (I expect there will be). The war on terror is not over.
I was especially impressed that President Obama took the time to call President Bush (and possibly President Clinton). The former president(s) deserved that. It's a show of respect from the current to the former.
There are lots of questions that should be answered. What took so long? Why did one helicopter have problems? Who will take over Al Qaeda actions and what will our attitude be towards him? But for today, and maybe tomorrow, we should all recognize that this event was significant. I listened to a local conservative radio personality this morning and was glad that he felt the same way. No bashing of the current (or former) president. No complaints. Job well done.
* Update * Just heard the Cal Thomas commentary on local radio. Thomas used the same title for today's commentary (5/4/11). I didn't know Mr. Thomas read my blog, but I'm pleased he used it. Hopefully he will share his fees for the day with me...
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Obama Birth Certificate
News today is that President Obama has released his long form birth certificate. The LA Times is also reporting that a "self-annointed leader of the so-called "birther" movement" still has doubts (no one should be surprised).
I'm hoping this issue can now be put to rest. But I have one question: The issue has been going on for over 3 years, why release the form now? Why wasn't it released 3 years ago?
I suspect that instead of resolving issues, new ones will come up....
I'm hoping this issue can now be put to rest. But I have one question: The issue has been going on for over 3 years, why release the form now? Why wasn't it released 3 years ago?
I suspect that instead of resolving issues, new ones will come up....
Monday, March 21, 2011
What does Michael Moore have in Common with the Tea Party?
Over the weekend, I watched Michael Moore's documentary "Capitalism: A Love Affair". It was the first Moore film I've ever watched and you're probably saying "Why is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Randy even watching such a film?" Well it wasn't as bad (or as good) as I'd been told about his films and it was interesting to hear his opinions first hand, rather than through someone else's filter.
As expected, the film was very anti-Bush, but also took some shots at several Clinton and current presidential appointees. One had to listen carefully to catch them, but they were there. Senators Dodd and Frank (both with a "D" after their name) were shown in a bad light, so both parties were skewered. There were several anti-Obama ads played that talked about Socialism. To me, the tie-in was weak, but the attempt was to show that Obama is not a socialist.
There were some random, seemingly unconnected portions of the movie, it focused on GM shutdowns, foreclosures, a group called the Low Income Families Fighting Together (see here) and a sit-down strike at Republic Windows and Doors (see here). Moore also had a segment on the low pay for pilots. To me, the main (only?) tie in these stories was that unions were shown in a positive light in each case, standing up for the little man against the big-bad company.
There was a segment on dead-peasant policies. To be honest, this puzzled me. Dead-peasant policies exist when a company, (Wal-Mart was highlighted) takes out a life insurance policy on their workers with the company as a beneficiary. Then if the employee dies, the company makes money. I'm trying to figure out why I should care. Assuming of course, the company doesn't do something to hasten the final event. In my case, I'd like the challenge to show the company that they would lose money on the insurance, I'd outlive their interest.
This makes me wonder about the business model of the life insurance company. Surely they have the actuarial numbers to show that over a large number of people, Wal-Mart can't make money in this game. Otherwise, the insurance companies are charging too little for this policy.
There was praise for FDR and his attempt to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights. The film said that Germany, Italy and Japan have these in their constitution. Frankly for me, that doesn't speak well. I for one, am not interested in emulating any of those countries. (As a side note, the film ends with Moore making the dramatic statement that he's not leaving the US, I'm guessing he's heard the people suggest he move to whatever country he thinks is better).
The movie ended saying that Capitalism is evil and should be replaced by democracy. It showed some companies that are run purely democratically. One was a small engineering firm, the other a bakery. It would be interesting to read more about these companies (sorry, I didn't get their name), to see how they got started, how did they manage their funds. How do they pay their CEO and how do they recruit given their democratic approach. I don't recall the companies names, so that research won't get done by me.
One of the questions I kept asking was about protection of property. Suppose I own a house and decide to sell it to you. After you've been in it for a few years, you find you can't make the payment. Shouldn't I have the right to foreclose? If you can't pay me what you owe me, can't I at least get my property back? Moore's film kept showing reasons that the big banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose (and some were legitimate), but what happens to the bank's property rights? Do we stomp all over those? That question was never answered.
Oh and lest I close without answering the title question - what DO Michael Moore and the Tea Party have in common? Both are solidly opposed to TARP and think the whole fiasco was created by the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street. I wonder, will Moore show up at the next Tea Party Rally?
As expected, the film was very anti-Bush, but also took some shots at several Clinton and current presidential appointees. One had to listen carefully to catch them, but they were there. Senators Dodd and Frank (both with a "D" after their name) were shown in a bad light, so both parties were skewered. There were several anti-Obama ads played that talked about Socialism. To me, the tie-in was weak, but the attempt was to show that Obama is not a socialist.
There were some random, seemingly unconnected portions of the movie, it focused on GM shutdowns, foreclosures, a group called the Low Income Families Fighting Together (see here) and a sit-down strike at Republic Windows and Doors (see here). Moore also had a segment on the low pay for pilots. To me, the main (only?) tie in these stories was that unions were shown in a positive light in each case, standing up for the little man against the big-bad company.
There was a segment on dead-peasant policies. To be honest, this puzzled me. Dead-peasant policies exist when a company, (Wal-Mart was highlighted) takes out a life insurance policy on their workers with the company as a beneficiary. Then if the employee dies, the company makes money. I'm trying to figure out why I should care. Assuming of course, the company doesn't do something to hasten the final event. In my case, I'd like the challenge to show the company that they would lose money on the insurance, I'd outlive their interest.
This makes me wonder about the business model of the life insurance company. Surely they have the actuarial numbers to show that over a large number of people, Wal-Mart can't make money in this game. Otherwise, the insurance companies are charging too little for this policy.
There was praise for FDR and his attempt to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights. The film said that Germany, Italy and Japan have these in their constitution. Frankly for me, that doesn't speak well. I for one, am not interested in emulating any of those countries. (As a side note, the film ends with Moore making the dramatic statement that he's not leaving the US, I'm guessing he's heard the people suggest he move to whatever country he thinks is better).
The movie ended saying that Capitalism is evil and should be replaced by democracy. It showed some companies that are run purely democratically. One was a small engineering firm, the other a bakery. It would be interesting to read more about these companies (sorry, I didn't get their name), to see how they got started, how did they manage their funds. How do they pay their CEO and how do they recruit given their democratic approach. I don't recall the companies names, so that research won't get done by me.
One of the questions I kept asking was about protection of property. Suppose I own a house and decide to sell it to you. After you've been in it for a few years, you find you can't make the payment. Shouldn't I have the right to foreclose? If you can't pay me what you owe me, can't I at least get my property back? Moore's film kept showing reasons that the big banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose (and some were legitimate), but what happens to the bank's property rights? Do we stomp all over those? That question was never answered.
Oh and lest I close without answering the title question - what DO Michael Moore and the Tea Party have in common? Both are solidly opposed to TARP and think the whole fiasco was created by the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street. I wonder, will Moore show up at the next Tea Party Rally?
Friday, February 04, 2011
procession of presidencies - part 2
It took me longer to get back to this than I thought. When I last left off, I had explained my theory on presidential elections. Basically, I had gone through presidents from JFK to JEC showing that the results of each election was predictable. It's almost as if some "invisible hand" was guiding not just economics, but elections too.
The last president I covered was President Carter. He took over after Ford, the only un-elected president we've ever had. America wasn't too happy with America. We'd been through the Vietnam war, then a crooked president. Then a president who tried to patch things up (Ford), but never seemed to do anything of note (except the Mayaquez incident). Inflation was high, unemployment was high. And things didn't get much better after Carter stepped in.
The hostage crisis in Iran sealed President Carter's image. Fairly or not, Americans felt defeated. A rescue attempt failed, costing the lives of 8 servicemen. The hostages were taken deeper under cover and were not released until after Carter left office.
America need to regain confidence in American. Ronald Reagan was the man for the job. Reagan was every man's grandfather. It didn't matter what he said, you just liked him. He believed in himself and he believed in America. He wanted to take the country back. I heard back then, that there was a huge boost in the sales of American flags. With him in office, America recovered. The economy got better, we ended the Cold War with the Russians and we actually made progress. We bombed Libya (on my birthday) and showed we would not put up with terrorism. Reagan surrounded himself with some very smart people, he may have been the last president to do so.
After 8 years of Reagan, control of the presidency went to his VP, George H.W. Bush. His time was lackluster. And his timing was worse. Americans had 8 years of Reagan and saw Bush as a continuation. They made fun of his "points of light" and everything else he did. When it was time for re-election, the economy was down and he seemed to not care.
In walked Bill Clinton. Like JFK, he held a Prince Charming appeal. America wanted a younger person in office, someone with charisma (a value Bush never was accused of). Sure, he was a womanizer, but he was a good looking womanizer. Men would laugh, women didn't care. And he said he would fix the economy.
At the end of his first stint, the economy looked good, so he was reelected. But after eight years, America decided it wasn't just the economy that was important, it was credibility also. They were tired of the snickers and back room jokes. Tired of the womanizer or maybe he had just grown too old? American wanted credibility again an reminisced about the days of a man named Reagan. He wasn't available and his VP Bush hadn't been all that good, but another Bush stepped in.
On George W. Bush's first presidency, 9/11 happened. Americans everywhere were convinced he was the right man for the job. There was even a political cartoon that showed Tipper Gore saying she thought he was a better choice. He was locked in for 8 years, primarily on the vote of Obam Bin Laden.
Americans can't be patient with anything and at the end of 8 years, the economy was again in a bad situation.Terrorism was no longer considered as big a threat as in 2004 and the reminiscing of Reagan fell flat. America wanted a change again, someone younger. A fresh view of the world. Someone who wasn't a cowboy. Someone who could negotiate.
In a perfect storm, a young candidate named Obama showed up. Not just a change, THE change. He wasn't Bush and he wasn't Clinton. He cared about people. He was a minority, but not too much of one. Americans could identify with him.
So what does this mean for 2012? Well predictions are easy in hindsight. It's the forward looking predictions that are hard. But I believe most presidential elections revolve around the economy. If the economy rebounds, President Obama will have no trouble getting reelected. If there is another 9/11 attack and if President Obama responds, he will have no trouble getting reelected. (I don't think there will be another 9/11, Bin Laden has no incentive) If on the other hand, the economic recovery still lags (and I think it will), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still linger and we have new issues crank up (Korea, Tibet, etc), I think he will face strong opposition.
It will be up to his opponents (both Democrats and Republicans) to surface a new face, one that shows confidence. One that shows patriotism (I think we're headed back to that).
What do you think?
The last president I covered was President Carter. He took over after Ford, the only un-elected president we've ever had. America wasn't too happy with America. We'd been through the Vietnam war, then a crooked president. Then a president who tried to patch things up (Ford), but never seemed to do anything of note (except the Mayaquez incident). Inflation was high, unemployment was high. And things didn't get much better after Carter stepped in.
The hostage crisis in Iran sealed President Carter's image. Fairly or not, Americans felt defeated. A rescue attempt failed, costing the lives of 8 servicemen. The hostages were taken deeper under cover and were not released until after Carter left office.
America need to regain confidence in American. Ronald Reagan was the man for the job. Reagan was every man's grandfather. It didn't matter what he said, you just liked him. He believed in himself and he believed in America. He wanted to take the country back. I heard back then, that there was a huge boost in the sales of American flags. With him in office, America recovered. The economy got better, we ended the Cold War with the Russians and we actually made progress. We bombed Libya (on my birthday) and showed we would not put up with terrorism. Reagan surrounded himself with some very smart people, he may have been the last president to do so.
After 8 years of Reagan, control of the presidency went to his VP, George H.W. Bush. His time was lackluster. And his timing was worse. Americans had 8 years of Reagan and saw Bush as a continuation. They made fun of his "points of light" and everything else he did. When it was time for re-election, the economy was down and he seemed to not care.
In walked Bill Clinton. Like JFK, he held a Prince Charming appeal. America wanted a younger person in office, someone with charisma (a value Bush never was accused of). Sure, he was a womanizer, but he was a good looking womanizer. Men would laugh, women didn't care. And he said he would fix the economy.
At the end of his first stint, the economy looked good, so he was reelected. But after eight years, America decided it wasn't just the economy that was important, it was credibility also. They were tired of the snickers and back room jokes. Tired of the womanizer or maybe he had just grown too old? American wanted credibility again an reminisced about the days of a man named Reagan. He wasn't available and his VP Bush hadn't been all that good, but another Bush stepped in.
On George W. Bush's first presidency, 9/11 happened. Americans everywhere were convinced he was the right man for the job. There was even a political cartoon that showed Tipper Gore saying she thought he was a better choice. He was locked in for 8 years, primarily on the vote of Obam Bin Laden.
Americans can't be patient with anything and at the end of 8 years, the economy was again in a bad situation.Terrorism was no longer considered as big a threat as in 2004 and the reminiscing of Reagan fell flat. America wanted a change again, someone younger. A fresh view of the world. Someone who wasn't a cowboy. Someone who could negotiate.
In a perfect storm, a young candidate named Obama showed up. Not just a change, THE change. He wasn't Bush and he wasn't Clinton. He cared about people. He was a minority, but not too much of one. Americans could identify with him.
So what does this mean for 2012? Well predictions are easy in hindsight. It's the forward looking predictions that are hard. But I believe most presidential elections revolve around the economy. If the economy rebounds, President Obama will have no trouble getting reelected. If there is another 9/11 attack and if President Obama responds, he will have no trouble getting reelected. (I don't think there will be another 9/11, Bin Laden has no incentive) If on the other hand, the economic recovery still lags (and I think it will), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still linger and we have new issues crank up (Korea, Tibet, etc), I think he will face strong opposition.
It will be up to his opponents (both Democrats and Republicans) to surface a new face, one that shows confidence. One that shows patriotism (I think we're headed back to that).
What do you think?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Climate advisor steps down - Who should replace?
I just read this news article that says Carol Brown, the president's climate advisor, is resigning from her post. Now you may be like me and didn't realize we had a climate advisor. But even though I didn't realize there was such a position, I'm impressed.
Obviously, this lady has done her job well. We in SC, have had more snow this year than in 4 average years and we're in the middle of a month long snap. Brown has advised away all effects of Global Warming in the two short years she's been in the job. (I'm assuming she took the job in 2009, I really don't know)
I have a suggestion to President Obama regarding her replacement. I think he has an opportunity to show his leadership skills, show is fiscal strength and show his climate change knowledge all at the same time. When he studies the matter and looks for a replacement hopefully, he will heed my advice. Next candidate for climate advisor? Nobody.
Obviously, this lady has done her job well. We in SC, have had more snow this year than in 4 average years and we're in the middle of a month long snap. Brown has advised away all effects of Global Warming in the two short years she's been in the job. (I'm assuming she took the job in 2009, I really don't know)
I have a suggestion to President Obama regarding her replacement. I think he has an opportunity to show his leadership skills, show is fiscal strength and show his climate change knowledge all at the same time. When he studies the matter and looks for a replacement hopefully, he will heed my advice. Next candidate for climate advisor? Nobody.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
You're yelling so loud, I can't hear what you're saying...
In the last several days, there have been a lot of outcries from both left and right about the Tucson shooting. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if anyone is listening. Instead, both sides are shouting as loud as they can, trying to drown out the other party. In the end, no one wins and we all become a little more deaf.
In his speech, President Obama suggested that we should talk to each other in a manner "that heals, not in a way that wounds." Like many times before, I agree with the President. I hope he means what he says and (more importantly) I hope that he does what he says. He is our leader and he needs to lead. This means that in political speeches, he needs to stop lashing out at those that disagree with him. I saw a list of things he'd said about his opposition and I won't repeat it here. But my point is, if he wants things to change, he should lead.
We also need to find a way to listen to others when we disagree. For too long, that hasn't been the case (on both sides). Instead, we push the ideas completely aside and ignore the message. If a person is in favor of abortion, shouldn't we try to understand why? If a person is opposed, shouldn't we listen, instead of just saying they must be a religious fanatic? (and yes, I chose a very divisive topic to make my point).
And most of all, shouldn't we listen even when the other party is yelling?
A couple of examples come to mind. A year ago, I posted about Pat Robertson and his opinions on Haiti. Seems Robertson said some things (as usual) that folks didn't like. His real message included a call for help and prayer for the Haitians. Now who could disagree with that? Another example is the so-called Westboro Church. They protest at funerals. Yet when you listen or read some of the details of what they say, they aren't much different than those in mainstream churches. The MANNER in which they say it and the TIMING are all designed to inflame -- and they do that quite well.
Both of these are extreme examples of how the yelling overpowers what is being said. So are these people at fault or are the people complaining about them? Both. If it weren't for all the complaints, the people would (eventually) go away. In a free society, there will be those who speak out in an inflammatory manner. All we can do is ignore them and hope for some real leadership.
In his speech, President Obama suggested that we should talk to each other in a manner "that heals, not in a way that wounds." Like many times before, I agree with the President. I hope he means what he says and (more importantly) I hope that he does what he says. He is our leader and he needs to lead. This means that in political speeches, he needs to stop lashing out at those that disagree with him. I saw a list of things he'd said about his opposition and I won't repeat it here. But my point is, if he wants things to change, he should lead.
We also need to find a way to listen to others when we disagree. For too long, that hasn't been the case (on both sides). Instead, we push the ideas completely aside and ignore the message. If a person is in favor of abortion, shouldn't we try to understand why? If a person is opposed, shouldn't we listen, instead of just saying they must be a religious fanatic? (and yes, I chose a very divisive topic to make my point).
And most of all, shouldn't we listen even when the other party is yelling?
A couple of examples come to mind. A year ago, I posted about Pat Robertson and his opinions on Haiti. Seems Robertson said some things (as usual) that folks didn't like. His real message included a call for help and prayer for the Haitians. Now who could disagree with that? Another example is the so-called Westboro Church. They protest at funerals. Yet when you listen or read some of the details of what they say, they aren't much different than those in mainstream churches. The MANNER in which they say it and the TIMING are all designed to inflame -- and they do that quite well.
Both of these are extreme examples of how the yelling overpowers what is being said. So are these people at fault or are the people complaining about them? Both. If it weren't for all the complaints, the people would (eventually) go away. In a free society, there will be those who speak out in an inflammatory manner. All we can do is ignore them and hope for some real leadership.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Is war ever worth fighting
My last post included a video of Joan Baez singing "Where have all the flowers gone?" The song was recorded by just about everyone in the 60's and it seemed to be a statement about the war in Vietnam. I was too young to really understand, but it seemed like a good time to be against something and the Vietnam war was an easy target (war as a target, that's something). Songs like this and "One, two, three, four, what are we fighting for?" (officially "I feel like I'm fixing to die" found here with mild profanity) were about as rebellious as I ever became. By the time I was draft age, the Vietnam War was a memory, a bad memory for a lot of people.
You may have seen that the review of the Afghanistan War is out, to be made official tomorrow. This comes at a time when "a record-high 60 percent of Americans think the war is not worth fighting," according this this article. The war has been raging on for just over 9 years now and an end is far away by anyone's judgment.
It made me think - is war ever worth fighting? Our President has said that this is a war of necessity (one of the few times he has agreed with former President Bush). A year ago he approved a surge, much like the one in Iraq, to send 30,000 more troops in, while also announcing an end date. Many on the left disapproved of this surge, wishing instead to get all troops out.
To me, the answer to the question can be found in a poem put to music by Pete Seeger, the same person who put "Where have all the flowers gone?" to music (the poem is found in the Bible, written by Solomon, the other Seeger song was from an old Ukranian folk song according to Wikipedia, not sure if Seeger actually wrote anything himself). According to the song (and to Solomon), "To every thing there is a season" and more importantly there is "a time of war, and a time of peace." If the Byrds sang it, it has to be so.
The real key is understanding when is the time for war and when is the time for peace. Most Americans would agree that 1776 was a time for war. Through a long fought battle, that wasn't popular with all Americans, we gained our freedom and began a democratic experiment that goes on today. Most people today blame Southerners for the Civil War, and while we did fire the first shot, the war would never have begun if the Union states had left the Confederate states alone. If you believe that the war was over slavery and that slavery needed to be ended (and I do to both), you'll have to say that 1861 was a time for war.
I may not always (often?) agree with this President, but I have to say that I believe he understands this concept. Sometimes, there is a time for war. We may soon find out if this is a time for war in Korea. I hope not. But I hope this President will continue to grow in his understanding of the phrase "a time to every purpose under the heaven:"
You may have seen that the review of the Afghanistan War is out, to be made official tomorrow. This comes at a time when "a record-high 60 percent of Americans think the war is not worth fighting," according this this article. The war has been raging on for just over 9 years now and an end is far away by anyone's judgment.
It made me think - is war ever worth fighting? Our President has said that this is a war of necessity (one of the few times he has agreed with former President Bush). A year ago he approved a surge, much like the one in Iraq, to send 30,000 more troops in, while also announcing an end date. Many on the left disapproved of this surge, wishing instead to get all troops out.
To me, the answer to the question can be found in a poem put to music by Pete Seeger, the same person who put "Where have all the flowers gone?" to music (the poem is found in the Bible, written by Solomon, the other Seeger song was from an old Ukranian folk song according to Wikipedia, not sure if Seeger actually wrote anything himself). According to the song (and to Solomon), "To every thing there is a season" and more importantly there is "a time of war, and a time of peace." If the Byrds sang it, it has to be so.
The real key is understanding when is the time for war and when is the time for peace. Most Americans would agree that 1776 was a time for war. Through a long fought battle, that wasn't popular with all Americans, we gained our freedom and began a democratic experiment that goes on today. Most people today blame Southerners for the Civil War, and while we did fire the first shot, the war would never have begun if the Union states had left the Confederate states alone. If you believe that the war was over slavery and that slavery needed to be ended (and I do to both), you'll have to say that 1861 was a time for war.
I may not always (often?) agree with this President, but I have to say that I believe he understands this concept. Sometimes, there is a time for war. We may soon find out if this is a time for war in Korea. I hope not. But I hope this President will continue to grow in his understanding of the phrase "a time to every purpose under the heaven:"
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Event
I've been watching the television show The Event and last night realized the resemblance of The President in the series to President Obama.
The show, subtitled "What will you beLIEve?" could be science fiction as it has people from another planet or place and they have knowledge/power beyond what mere humans have, but really is more of a mild drama. There are no phasers or funny weapons. And they don't bend the laws of science very much.
The President in the series is played by Blair Underwood, a light skinned, good looking African-American. He was elected two years ago and according to his bio is "Moral and idealistic. Hugely popular with the American people and around the world, (he) wants to be a new kind of President, working toward a new America. He's committed to honesty ..." Like our real president, the president in this series is not fully, African-American, he was "born to Cuban refugees in Miami, Florida" and "is very proud of his Afro-Cuban roots. He is a graduate of Yale University."
But last night while watching an episode on my DVR, I noticed a deeper similarity, something in the character of the man that matches President Obama. In the episode, a man who tried to kill the president had been captured and was about to be interrogated. The President demanded that he be allowed to question the individual and that he could get answers. I'd seen it before in the series (although I can't remember the scenes), places where the President got involved in order to handle some seemingly small issue, not letting the experts do their job. The President thinks he can fix anything. He believes that he is Interrogator in Charge, Chief Fence Mender and Overall Head Honcho.
We've seen this in real life, with the mishandling of the Shirley Sherrod case, getting involved before he knew all of the facts. It can be seen in the Henry Gates case, by saying the police "acted stupidly" then having a beer summit to ease the tensions. He weighed in on the 9/11 Mosque, an issue that should have been handled by the residents and officials of New York City. And we've seen the President get involved to fix important things (like medical care) where the government has no business meddling.
Like the President on The Event, President Obama thinks it's his job to fix anything and everything that comes up
For previous posts on related to this see here and here.
The show, subtitled "What will you beLIEve?" could be science fiction as it has people from another planet or place and they have knowledge/power beyond what mere humans have, but really is more of a mild drama. There are no phasers or funny weapons. And they don't bend the laws of science very much.
The President in the series is played by Blair Underwood, a light skinned, good looking African-American. He was elected two years ago and according to his bio is "Moral and idealistic. Hugely popular with the American people and around the world, (he) wants to be a new kind of President, working toward a new America. He's committed to honesty ..." Like our real president, the president in this series is not fully, African-American, he was "born to Cuban refugees in Miami, Florida" and "is very proud of his Afro-Cuban roots. He is a graduate of Yale University."
But last night while watching an episode on my DVR, I noticed a deeper similarity, something in the character of the man that matches President Obama. In the episode, a man who tried to kill the president had been captured and was about to be interrogated. The President demanded that he be allowed to question the individual and that he could get answers. I'd seen it before in the series (although I can't remember the scenes), places where the President got involved in order to handle some seemingly small issue, not letting the experts do their job. The President thinks he can fix anything. He believes that he is Interrogator in Charge, Chief Fence Mender and Overall Head Honcho.
We've seen this in real life, with the mishandling of the Shirley Sherrod case, getting involved before he knew all of the facts. It can be seen in the Henry Gates case, by saying the police "acted stupidly" then having a beer summit to ease the tensions. He weighed in on the 9/11 Mosque, an issue that should have been handled by the residents and officials of New York City. And we've seen the President get involved to fix important things (like medical care) where the government has no business meddling.
Like the President on The Event, President Obama thinks it's his job to fix anything and everything that comes up
For previous posts on related to this see here and here.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The Constitution and Obamacare
I've just finished reading a book on the making of the Constitution. "Miracle at Philadephia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention" covers the summer of 1787 when a group of men gathered together to create the document we all (in the US) live by now.
I took a lot of notes while I read, but I decided not to post all of them as I did with a previous book. However, I was struck by similarities to the recent health-care package that was passed. While I'm no fan of the health-care package, it turns out some very well known people (e.g. Patrick Henry) were no fan of the Constitution.
The Constitution was written in Philadelphia in secret. The conventioneers were very careful not to leave notes where outsiders could see them and were cautioned not to tell anyone what was going on. The press cooperated with the secrecy, even suggesting that they were better off not knowing. While the health-care package was not crafted in complete secrecy, there certainly were people who thought we were better off not knowing all of the details ahead of time.
I've also been involved in a few discussions with people who think the problem with the package was that it just wasn't "sold" well enough. They feel like the health-care bill needs a good PR story. After the Constitution was created and voted on by Congress, the drafters including James Madison went out to "sell" the document.
One final comparison point is that "we the people" never voted on the Constitution. Representatives of the people voted on the document. Many of these representatives felt like the people weren't capable of understanding the paper. They felt they were more educated and knew what was best.
I'm not trying to imply that the Constitution and Obamacare are of equal importance or that they both fall into the same category. I just couldn't help but notice the similarities...
I took a lot of notes while I read, but I decided not to post all of them as I did with a previous book. However, I was struck by similarities to the recent health-care package that was passed. While I'm no fan of the health-care package, it turns out some very well known people (e.g. Patrick Henry) were no fan of the Constitution.
The Constitution was written in Philadelphia in secret. The conventioneers were very careful not to leave notes where outsiders could see them and were cautioned not to tell anyone what was going on. The press cooperated with the secrecy, even suggesting that they were better off not knowing. While the health-care package was not crafted in complete secrecy, there certainly were people who thought we were better off not knowing all of the details ahead of time.
I've also been involved in a few discussions with people who think the problem with the package was that it just wasn't "sold" well enough. They feel like the health-care bill needs a good PR story. After the Constitution was created and voted on by Congress, the drafters including James Madison went out to "sell" the document.
One final comparison point is that "we the people" never voted on the Constitution. Representatives of the people voted on the document. Many of these representatives felt like the people weren't capable of understanding the paper. They felt they were more educated and knew what was best.
I'm not trying to imply that the Constitution and Obamacare are of equal importance or that they both fall into the same category. I just couldn't help but notice the similarities...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)