Once again, I took a one year hiatus three years ago, it's time to "give it a rest" for a while, a long while. The last time I gave up my blogspot address and was never able to recover my posts. So, this time I'll just leave this post up as a reminder to myself that if I have anything worth saying I still have a spot.
Right now, I'm out of things to say as the frustration about politics is mounting for me. If you happen to stop by and see this message, please go to several of my kindred spirits for a dose of reality: dada, Border Explorer, Fran, and DK, plus so many other interesting blogs, too numerous to count. They tell it like it is from their perspectives. And, they're good people worthy of good reads!
If you want to send me an email, my address is cragg327@yahoo.com. Smooth sailing and may the wind always be at your back! Hasta luego!
*
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
What Are You Going To Do This Summer!
Over at the Back Channel, BevnTempe asked the question this morning about what all of us "regulars" and anyone else who wanted to chime in what were they going to do this summer. Inasmuch as I'm feeling burnt out, disappointed, and down-right frustrated with the state of affairs (not including the ol' governor), her post was a welcome question. Here was my answer with a few more embellishments:
Great post, Bev. You’re right, we do need to take a break from the constant jibberjabber of politics and stop and smell the roses.
We’ve put so much time, energy, and money into our backyard “resort” — as one of my daughters calls it — that we’ll spend most of the hot weather here at home with family, lots of pool time, fireworks on the fourth, and bbqs. We’ll take in a few D-Backs games, as well as get ready for the grandson’s high school football games starting in mid-August, when the weather is still in the 100’s during the day and the nineties after the sun goes down. No bundling up for football season here in the desert.
We would like to take our trailer out and go up north to cooler weather for a couple days, too. Can’t go too far for too long as the m-i-l is 94 and my wife, along with her sisters, take turns staying with her, bringing her meals, and visiting. We’re in the “sandwich” generation of taking care of an elderly family member and the very young of the family. Our great grandson, six, spends anywhere from three weeks to three months with us at a time as his separated parents like, need, want to leave him with us for extended times. We certainly don't mind having him around even though it is quite difficult to keep up with his high energy level. Thank goodness there are two of us to take on the task of care-giving.
My garden needs constant attention, especially watering each day, as it would burn up if left alone for more than two days at a time. I like the job of constant gardener as I’m learning what does well and where here in the desert. It’s a real trick to grow many common vegetables; but, I’m learning. Gardening in the desert is quite different from what I used to do in my gardens in Washington and California. This is my second year at it here in the desert and each year I add something new, whether it be soil or watering systems. Next year I plan to put in an automatic irrigation system and a sunscreen for my little patch of a garden.
Great post, Bev. You’re right, we do need to take a break from the constant jibberjabber of politics and stop and smell the roses.
We’ve put so much time, energy, and money into our backyard “resort” — as one of my daughters calls it — that we’ll spend most of the hot weather here at home with family, lots of pool time, fireworks on the fourth, and bbqs. We’ll take in a few D-Backs games, as well as get ready for the grandson’s high school football games starting in mid-August, when the weather is still in the 100’s during the day and the nineties after the sun goes down. No bundling up for football season here in the desert.
We would like to take our trailer out and go up north to cooler weather for a couple days, too. Can’t go too far for too long as the m-i-l is 94 and my wife, along with her sisters, take turns staying with her, bringing her meals, and visiting. We’re in the “sandwich” generation of taking care of an elderly family member and the very young of the family. Our great grandson, six, spends anywhere from three weeks to three months with us at a time as his separated parents like, need, want to leave him with us for extended times. We certainly don't mind having him around even though it is quite difficult to keep up with his high energy level. Thank goodness there are two of us to take on the task of care-giving.
My garden needs constant attention, especially watering each day, as it would burn up if left alone for more than two days at a time. I like the job of constant gardener as I’m learning what does well and where here in the desert. It’s a real trick to grow many common vegetables; but, I’m learning. Gardening in the desert is quite different from what I used to do in my gardens in Washington and California. This is my second year at it here in the desert and each year I add something new, whether it be soil or watering systems. Next year I plan to put in an automatic irrigation system and a sunscreen for my little patch of a garden.
I got plenty of good advice from my back channel friends on things I can do to improve my garden. So, with their advice in mind, I'll start a fresh garden next February. Yes, we plant our gardens in February or at the lastest in March as the heat comes on fairly early around these parts.
OK, I’m looking forward to reading what each of you will be doing this summer.
*
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Speaker Pelosi's Coalition Government!
As usual, things aren't always what you think they are in the world of politics. Case in point: Democrats aren't always Democrats and Republicans aren't always Republicans in the sense that members of the Congress follow their leaders on critical issues to the nation. This last fall, Americans were told that they had ushered in a new Congress made up of a Democratic majority larger than the one that came into office in 2006. Democrats rejoiced everywhere! Finally, they said, we'll put this country back on track toward a more progressive society.
In addition, a new Democratic president took office giving Democrats control of the White House and the Congress. The Senate, too, now has a substantial margin of Democrats over Republicans in an almost veto-proof situation with 59 Democrats holding seats.
So, why has President Obama and the Congress become so indecisive, compromising, and centerist in most, if not all policy initiatives?
The reason is especially transparent in the US House of Representatives where on every major vote Speaker Pelosi has to keep her "coalition government" together to get even the most tepid Democratic initiatives passed. Why? Because of the faction in the House known as the "Blue Dogs." This group originally made up of southern conservative Democrats has grown into a large national faction that must be taken into account with each and every vote in the Congress.
Yesterday's vote on keeping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going with money for the IMF and a new weapons system was made possible by the "Blue Dogs" holding out their support until the bill looked like they wanted it to and not what progressive Democrats wanted. Health care reform, if there is to be any, will also be decided by the "Blue Dogs."
Mostly made up of Democrats, these "blue dog" representatives are center to right leaning and eschew major progressive changes as either too costly or too radical. There are 53 "blue dog" representatives in the House who together can make or break just about any policy initiative.
Speaker Pelosi doesn't have a Democratic majority at all. She has three factions: Progressive Democrats; Reactionary Republicans; and, centerist "Blue Dogs." In essence, there are now three political parties in the United States at the national level. Republicans are in decline; Democrats are in decline; and, "Blue Dogs" are increasing their numbers as a centerist political party.
And, you thought we only had two political parties in this country!
*
In addition, a new Democratic president took office giving Democrats control of the White House and the Congress. The Senate, too, now has a substantial margin of Democrats over Republicans in an almost veto-proof situation with 59 Democrats holding seats.
So, why has President Obama and the Congress become so indecisive, compromising, and centerist in most, if not all policy initiatives?
The reason is especially transparent in the US House of Representatives where on every major vote Speaker Pelosi has to keep her "coalition government" together to get even the most tepid Democratic initiatives passed. Why? Because of the faction in the House known as the "Blue Dogs." This group originally made up of southern conservative Democrats has grown into a large national faction that must be taken into account with each and every vote in the Congress.
Yesterday's vote on keeping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going with money for the IMF and a new weapons system was made possible by the "Blue Dogs" holding out their support until the bill looked like they wanted it to and not what progressive Democrats wanted. Health care reform, if there is to be any, will also be decided by the "Blue Dogs."
Mostly made up of Democrats, these "blue dog" representatives are center to right leaning and eschew major progressive changes as either too costly or too radical. There are 53 "blue dog" representatives in the House who together can make or break just about any policy initiative.
Speaker Pelosi doesn't have a Democratic majority at all. She has three factions: Progressive Democrats; Reactionary Republicans; and, centerist "Blue Dogs." In essence, there are now three political parties in the United States at the national level. Republicans are in decline; Democrats are in decline; and, "Blue Dogs" are increasing their numbers as a centerist political party.
And, you thought we only had two political parties in this country!
*
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
It's a Democratic War Now!
The US House of Representatives today voted 226-202 to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 221 Democrats, a majority voting, were joined by five Republicans in passing HR 2346, the Supplemental Funding bill.
The bill might have been a clear indication by anti-war Democrats that they wanted a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. That provision was left off. The bill got bogged down by adding into the $100 billion bill money for the International Monetary Fund and adding a $9 billion aircraft, which Secretary Gates said the US doesn't need in it's weapons systems. Republicans, who are anything but anti-war, said they support the troops but not the IMF, so they voted against the bill.
The Democrats, excepting 32, voted to keep the wars going indefinitely -- or until another supplemental war spending bill crosses their desks. So much for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan! Now, it's Obama's wars!
*
The bill might have been a clear indication by anti-war Democrats that they wanted a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. That provision was left off. The bill got bogged down by adding into the $100 billion bill money for the International Monetary Fund and adding a $9 billion aircraft, which Secretary Gates said the US doesn't need in it's weapons systems. Republicans, who are anything but anti-war, said they support the troops but not the IMF, so they voted against the bill.
The Democrats, excepting 32, voted to keep the wars going indefinitely -- or until another supplemental war spending bill crosses their desks. So much for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan! Now, it's Obama's wars!
*
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Meaningful Health Care Reform Is Slipping Away!
The single payer health care program is all but dead. Public options are all but dead as the exceptions are mounting. The insurance companies have ramped up their lobbying spending big time. Every day reports are listed in newspapers and Internet posts showing how many members of Congress are in the pockets of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, the HMO's, and the all other health care industries. So, if any kind of health care reform is to take place, the reforms will be around the edges, and will probably benefit industry not individuals. This is the kind of change we can believe in!
*
*
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Isn’t It Time to Define Terrorism and Terrorists?
President Obama is trying his darnest to find the default definition of terrorism by declaring that the term, “War on Terrorism,” be abolished in his administration. Too bad the popular media and the opposition party won’t go along for the moment until we can define who, what, where, and when the term should be used.
It’s too much to ask of the media and others to stop using terms like the war on terrorism and labeling individuals as terrorists in the absence of an agreed up definition of these terms.
When I used to tell my students in the first years of the new decade that America gave birth to the modern concept of using terrorism to defeat the British you could hear the yowls of protest all across the campus and out the doors of my classroom. “Americans were never terrorists,” they would shout at me, almost in unison, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. They were our heroes. But, in the context of not marching out to the battlefield with pawns ready to die for the cause but, instead shooting from behind rocks and trees at the hated British redcoats, the new patriots were terrorists, and the British wasted no time calling them that exactly.
Yesterday’s terrorists can be, and often are, depending on who wins the ultimate battle for control of the state or territory, today’s revolutionary heroes. Think about Mao and Castro and Menachem Begin, former Israeli Prime Minister who helped bomb the King David Hotel killing nearly 100 before Israel was a state. They were all labeled terrorists at one time or another in their careers as revolutionary heroes to their own people.
In the United States, it is way too easy to call a foreigner of Arab background or of Islamic belief a terrorist, even without a shred of evidence. Yet, there is an inclination to disbelieve that any American can be a terrorist unless identified with an Islamic movement such as al Qaeda. Recent history in the United States shows that Americans are very reluctant to call the alleged killer of Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder, a terrorist. Nor will Americans call Timothy McVey a terrorist or the Atlanta bomber, Eric Rudolph, a terrorist, or any of the other politically motivated Americans who use violent methods to reverse the political fortunes of their causes. These people are, after all, Americans, no matter what their political causes may be.
We need a better definition to identify individuals and organizations who use violence as a means to an end, regardless of their national background or religious beliefs. In the meanwhile, we should follow Obama’s example and tamp down the indiscriminate use of the term terrorist until such time as we know definitively what the label really means!
(This post is also on The BackChannel blog.)
*
It’s too much to ask of the media and others to stop using terms like the war on terrorism and labeling individuals as terrorists in the absence of an agreed up definition of these terms.
When I used to tell my students in the first years of the new decade that America gave birth to the modern concept of using terrorism to defeat the British you could hear the yowls of protest all across the campus and out the doors of my classroom. “Americans were never terrorists,” they would shout at me, almost in unison, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. They were our heroes. But, in the context of not marching out to the battlefield with pawns ready to die for the cause but, instead shooting from behind rocks and trees at the hated British redcoats, the new patriots were terrorists, and the British wasted no time calling them that exactly.
Yesterday’s terrorists can be, and often are, depending on who wins the ultimate battle for control of the state or territory, today’s revolutionary heroes. Think about Mao and Castro and Menachem Begin, former Israeli Prime Minister who helped bomb the King David Hotel killing nearly 100 before Israel was a state. They were all labeled terrorists at one time or another in their careers as revolutionary heroes to their own people.
In the United States, it is way too easy to call a foreigner of Arab background or of Islamic belief a terrorist, even without a shred of evidence. Yet, there is an inclination to disbelieve that any American can be a terrorist unless identified with an Islamic movement such as al Qaeda. Recent history in the United States shows that Americans are very reluctant to call the alleged killer of Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder, a terrorist. Nor will Americans call Timothy McVey a terrorist or the Atlanta bomber, Eric Rudolph, a terrorist, or any of the other politically motivated Americans who use violent methods to reverse the political fortunes of their causes. These people are, after all, Americans, no matter what their political causes may be.
We need a better definition to identify individuals and organizations who use violence as a means to an end, regardless of their national background or religious beliefs. In the meanwhile, we should follow Obama’s example and tamp down the indiscriminate use of the term terrorist until such time as we know definitively what the label really means!
(This post is also on The BackChannel blog.)
*
Friday, June 05, 2009
DOJ Launches Investigation Inro Murder of Dr. Tiller!
The Obama Administration, after five days of relative silence, has decided to pull out all the stops in investigating and prosecuting any and all who may have participated in the murder of Dr. George Tiller. The DOJ will also provide Marshalls and other law-enforcement personnel to protect the few remaining doctors and their staffs willing to perform abortions, a legal medical procedure in the United States.
According to a DOJ announcement today, "the Civil Rights Division recently convened a meeting of the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers, an interagency law enforcement working group that includes attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal Division, and law enforcement officials from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service."
Good for the DOJ and good for President Obama!
*
According to a DOJ announcement today, "the Civil Rights Division recently convened a meeting of the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers, an interagency law enforcement working group that includes attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal Division, and law enforcement officials from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service."
Good for the DOJ and good for President Obama!
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
