Is it just me or does "I'm the decision maker" sound more like the half drunk loser husband bringing to bear his physical advantage to claim control over his uppity wife?
I've taken some time off from writing lately in effort to shake a bad case of cynicism but there seems to be nowhere to hide these days. I figured I would slip off somewhere and find something less dire to talk about but then I get that "deck chair on the Titanic" feeling and find myself back where I left off. It just seems to damn important to ignore.
Folks, we have people in the highest levels of this Government who quite possibly could be delusional. Senator Durbin's assertion about Vice President Cheney, although part and parcel to politics, could in fact be true. It appears we may be witnessing what this man is actually made of, a "never say die" personal constitution that if allowed to fragment would spell the end for him. He may be willing to sacrifice anything to avoid this, including the welfare of this country.
Now on to president Bush, whether directed or his own volition, his State of the Union Address included the requisite acknowledgements and concessions one would expect under the circumstances except for the war in Iraq where their will be no compromise. The "I'm the decision maker," statement seems to have signaled the end to the more thorough explanations. It's damn the Generals,Baker,Hamilton and the torpedoes time for this President.
So who's will is really being exerted here? I can't help believe that this statement does come from his heart but, it by no means seems the natural way to communicate it. In fact, at this point in his Presidency I suspect Mr. Bush longs far more for retirement than owning any more responsibility for the Iraq war.
Remember that President Bush has had to rely on others to tend to virtually all matters involving foreign affairs. Since 9/11/2001 he has essentially handed the reigns over to appointees, who have in effect bungled the job. What I gather from this statement is that, particularly without Rumsfeld around, he is letting Cheney and others know two things, we'll go it your way one more time but after that I am the boss, "the decision maker." Of course it could just be that I'm stupid and just being too damn optimistic.
In a strange way it's too bad that he didn't have his current level of experience when he was elected. He very well might have been a better President.
And now it's payback time for The President and unfortunately the country for bad decisions. In the Presidents case for not knowing his limits and, the country for lack of due diligence. After all we elected someone who without being the son of a former President could indisputably never have won. What we perceive to be safe decisions cushioned with familiarity often are not. We just get old recycled ideas even if they failed in the past. It's time to say goodbye to this clan and all their associates once and for all.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Dems Get Gavel
I'd give anything to know how it turns out for the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. I was able to watch most of the ceremony and I must admit being a little spellbound watching her. She did an admirable job being gracious and looking the part though she did seem to absorb the adulation a little more in line with someone who had just won a beauty pageant. Hopefully this was just a nervous way of dealing with a once in a lifetime event and not some insatiable thirst for this kind of thing. Give her some slack, right, after all I'm watching the anointment of the first woman Speaker in the history of the country. Maybe, but as a citizen I'm in need of knowing if it's all about the country or all about Nancy Pelosi. Fair or not, she is being asked to "right the ship," after a period of Government shenanigans that rivals the Warren G. Harding administration, so the stakes are unusually high. For now I'm all eyes and ears.
The grand kids surrounding her was a stroke of genius for unexpected reasons. They busied up the images so her high energy squirming, twitching and lip biting wasn't so noticeable.
When it came to the speech I'm glad she mentioned the troops in Iraq as soon as she did even though none of the first 100 hours will be spent on them.
Actually as she spoke, the administration was at work teeing up some thousands of more soldiers for Iraq in one last effort to salvage whatever is left of President Bush's ego. They also continue to eye the War Powers Act and now even postal laws to magically increase they're authority. Do you think a spirit of partnership can work to curtail these plans?
Congressman Henry Waxman heading the House Government Reform Committee is exciting. I wonder if he had anything to do with Vice President Cheney looking grumpier than usual or President Bush's more than normal, "the lights are on but no body's home," appearance with Chancellor Merkel today.
As usual, time will tell but, I'm sure glad we are at least trying something new.
See, ethics is something that good people posses. It's that nature-nurture concoction that make some people unable to live with themselves unless they follow the straight and narrow. In groups these people understand the value of a commitment to something greater than oneself. Once it takes hold it has the potential to be truly great and the servants and the served reap enormous reward.
The Minority Leader elect John Boehner said something telling when introducing Speaker Pelosi. Referring to ethics on the part of the Republicans he said, "...when they lose sight of this they begin writing a ticket to minority status." This is the "big stick" approach to the straight and narrow and it doesn't work. It's not surprising it came from the side that lost. Bad guy's aren't team players and maintaining the majority is not enough to keep them honest.
Hopefully the new leadership will see the difference and start some meaningful reform because if you can't fix this then nothing else matters.
The grand kids surrounding her was a stroke of genius for unexpected reasons. They busied up the images so her high energy squirming, twitching and lip biting wasn't so noticeable.
When it came to the speech I'm glad she mentioned the troops in Iraq as soon as she did even though none of the first 100 hours will be spent on them.
Actually as she spoke, the administration was at work teeing up some thousands of more soldiers for Iraq in one last effort to salvage whatever is left of President Bush's ego. They also continue to eye the War Powers Act and now even postal laws to magically increase they're authority. Do you think a spirit of partnership can work to curtail these plans?
Congressman Henry Waxman heading the House Government Reform Committee is exciting. I wonder if he had anything to do with Vice President Cheney looking grumpier than usual or President Bush's more than normal, "the lights are on but no body's home," appearance with Chancellor Merkel today.
As usual, time will tell but, I'm sure glad we are at least trying something new.
See, ethics is something that good people posses. It's that nature-nurture concoction that make some people unable to live with themselves unless they follow the straight and narrow. In groups these people understand the value of a commitment to something greater than oneself. Once it takes hold it has the potential to be truly great and the servants and the served reap enormous reward.
The Minority Leader elect John Boehner said something telling when introducing Speaker Pelosi. Referring to ethics on the part of the Republicans he said, "...when they lose sight of this they begin writing a ticket to minority status." This is the "big stick" approach to the straight and narrow and it doesn't work. It's not surprising it came from the side that lost. Bad guy's aren't team players and maintaining the majority is not enough to keep them honest.
Hopefully the new leadership will see the difference and start some meaningful reform because if you can't fix this then nothing else matters.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Sizing up 2006
As I begin yet another year I can't seem to shake that tugging feeling to size up the year passed. Though not in the memory jogging, January to December tick-off of events kind of way. I find more interesting anything that seems to drive the behavior which the expression of, will be immortalized for 2006.
I think that the balance between the haves and the have-nots may ultimately decide the fate of the planet so it is naturally worth some attention each and every year.
Political systems that harnessed the power of the natural desire to improve ones own lot in life seemed to have had plenty of success.
The places with less of this struggled along with those with few resources and limited experience exploiting the resources they did have. Societies in these stages tend to "cut the tall flowers," so to speak, so the overall restraints to improvement are large.
In the U.S. where the gap has become a valley between the haves and have-nots, the poor don't starve and the society for the most part encourages success but, the shift toward the haves knowledge based economy creates a formidable barrier for entry for the have-nots.
The haves on the other hand seem to remain confounded as to why the have-nots don't simply recognize that the haves inched their way up and they can to. What the haves will never concede is that an ever increasing number of them never were have-nots in the first place. Strangely the ones that skipped the penniless origins, often tend to offer the most advice to the penniless on the subject.
All the while 40 million people have no health insurance and one trillion was spent on health care last year of which 500 billion was spent on the last 10 days of life. I'm no mathematician but for congress to carry on about where to start the negotiating for a minimum wage increase for less than two per cent of the population doesn't leave me all that hopeful
You know my feelings about Iraq. It was a mistake in a variety of ways but the ancillary issue of 2006 is Iran. We had to euphemistically describe what we thought Saddam Hussein had as "weapons of mass destruction," to invade Iraq. We won't have to do that in Iran. We'll know exactly what they have and if it's not good we likely won't be able to do anything about it because we are spent, both politically and financially. If the economy stays robust, the war in Iraq turned around and we made some progress repairing our image around the world it will be two years before we could do anything about Iran. On the positive side it may be a good thing because it will force this administration to work diplomatically for two years and then they'll all be gone.
Which brings me to my last issue for this post. Why does the U.S. Dollar continue to hit lows against all major currencies? This is another conundrum whose birthday was in 2006. Far be it from me to try to call the reason for currency fluctuations but given what appears to be guesswork by the economists I read, I'll share my opinion.
I've seen many periods over the years when the dollar remained strong when it shouldn't have, and had it explained that due to the perceived on balance strength of the U.S relative to the rest of the world, with risk being part of every investment equation, people simply preferred to hold U.S. dollars. Why would I not now believe that the opposite is the case.
I think that the balance between the haves and the have-nots may ultimately decide the fate of the planet so it is naturally worth some attention each and every year.
Political systems that harnessed the power of the natural desire to improve ones own lot in life seemed to have had plenty of success.
The places with less of this struggled along with those with few resources and limited experience exploiting the resources they did have. Societies in these stages tend to "cut the tall flowers," so to speak, so the overall restraints to improvement are large.
In the U.S. where the gap has become a valley between the haves and have-nots, the poor don't starve and the society for the most part encourages success but, the shift toward the haves knowledge based economy creates a formidable barrier for entry for the have-nots.
The haves on the other hand seem to remain confounded as to why the have-nots don't simply recognize that the haves inched their way up and they can to. What the haves will never concede is that an ever increasing number of them never were have-nots in the first place. Strangely the ones that skipped the penniless origins, often tend to offer the most advice to the penniless on the subject.
All the while 40 million people have no health insurance and one trillion was spent on health care last year of which 500 billion was spent on the last 10 days of life. I'm no mathematician but for congress to carry on about where to start the negotiating for a minimum wage increase for less than two per cent of the population doesn't leave me all that hopeful
You know my feelings about Iraq. It was a mistake in a variety of ways but the ancillary issue of 2006 is Iran. We had to euphemistically describe what we thought Saddam Hussein had as "weapons of mass destruction," to invade Iraq. We won't have to do that in Iran. We'll know exactly what they have and if it's not good we likely won't be able to do anything about it because we are spent, both politically and financially. If the economy stays robust, the war in Iraq turned around and we made some progress repairing our image around the world it will be two years before we could do anything about Iran. On the positive side it may be a good thing because it will force this administration to work diplomatically for two years and then they'll all be gone.
Which brings me to my last issue for this post. Why does the U.S. Dollar continue to hit lows against all major currencies? This is another conundrum whose birthday was in 2006. Far be it from me to try to call the reason for currency fluctuations but given what appears to be guesswork by the economists I read, I'll share my opinion.
I've seen many periods over the years when the dollar remained strong when it shouldn't have, and had it explained that due to the perceived on balance strength of the U.S relative to the rest of the world, with risk being part of every investment equation, people simply preferred to hold U.S. dollars. Why would I not now believe that the opposite is the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)