While I remain a hopeful supporter of Obama, I am seeing signs of traditional politics intruding rapidly and strongly into his repertoire. In so many instances, Obama is now "changing his tune". Time table for getting out of Iraq, renegotiating NAFTA, abiding by the rules of public funding for the general election, energy policy issues, e.g., use of biofuels, have become instances of change that concerns someone like myself.
David Brooks' scathing column on the two Obamas (Dr. Obama vs. Fast Eddie)did justice to these concerns.
At the same time, there is a need for political astuteness. Naiveness is not a quality that needs to be associated with the President. Brooks closes his column by indicating the Obama is "the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades".
For the moment, then, I remain hopeful that his effectiveness can be coupled with his pledge to change the way our government operates.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Supreme Court Decision
Even after talking to the younger of my two lawyer sons in an attempt to determine the implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding the Habeas Corpus rights, or lack thereof, of those held in detention in Guantanamo Bay, I admit to confusion.
Thankfully, the "ingenious" inventor of some controversial memoranda at the Justice Department, John Yoo, has written an article critical of the decision that helped clarify my opinion of the decision.
John Yoo thinks that the decision threw out precedents giving the President full authority to deal with enemy combatants during war. In short, when war occurs, those held as prisoners fall outside our judicial structures. Given the precedents he cites, I can understand his claim.
But then, it became clear to me what is at issue, viz, "war".
I have never agreed to the fact that we were at war with any nation. The Senate has never voted a proclamation for war. What we have is Bush's rhetoric that the horrendous actions by some radical extremists represents "war". From my perspective, this was always an overkill, designed to stir up the fears of our citizenry.
I admit that the terrorists actions were extreme, but their agents were not going to be objects of warfare as much as police actions designed to root out those who either accomplished the acts or planned/supported them.
Thus, I conclude that we should provide habeas corpus procedures to those held since they should be subject to crimes that can be rightfully prosecuted in our courts.
Thankfully, the "ingenious" inventor of some controversial memoranda at the Justice Department, John Yoo, has written an article critical of the decision that helped clarify my opinion of the decision.
John Yoo thinks that the decision threw out precedents giving the President full authority to deal with enemy combatants during war. In short, when war occurs, those held as prisoners fall outside our judicial structures. Given the precedents he cites, I can understand his claim.
But then, it became clear to me what is at issue, viz, "war".
I have never agreed to the fact that we were at war with any nation. The Senate has never voted a proclamation for war. What we have is Bush's rhetoric that the horrendous actions by some radical extremists represents "war". From my perspective, this was always an overkill, designed to stir up the fears of our citizenry.
I admit that the terrorists actions were extreme, but their agents were not going to be objects of warfare as much as police actions designed to root out those who either accomplished the acts or planned/supported them.
Thus, I conclude that we should provide habeas corpus procedures to those held since they should be subject to crimes that can be rightfully prosecuted in our courts.
Monday, June 16, 2008
"A Thousand Splendid Suns" by Khaled Hosseini
The author of "The Kite Runner" has written another masterpiece, "A Thousand Splendid Suns". While the actual story focuses on the plight of women in Afghanistan with all the horrors associated with their culture as well as the forces of tyranny (Taliban and the recurrent military adventures), it does at least end on a positive note. The sadness associated with the burdens placed on women was overwhelming, but the author was kind enough to end the story with hope, at least for a few.
Reading this book in the context of what we know about Afghanistan through the news, it is a puzzle to see how the efforts of any outside force will overcome the history of this people. The layers of loyalty, schematically aligned to different war lords, coupled with the rigidity of their religious and gender issues, seem gigantic obstacles to any change. It seems that outside intervention only stimulates their resistance to any change.
Reading this book in the context of what we know about Afghanistan through the news, it is a puzzle to see how the efforts of any outside force will overcome the history of this people. The layers of loyalty, schematically aligned to different war lords, coupled with the rigidity of their religious and gender issues, seem gigantic obstacles to any change. It seems that outside intervention only stimulates their resistance to any change.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Concerns re: Obama's Economic Policies
Until I read "The Shock Doctrine", I never heard of Naomi Klein. But, her book was extraordinarily well written and documented. It was a convincing indictment of the Chicago School of Economics, per Milton Friedman.
She now writes that Obama has named top economic advisers who come out of this school personally or are supporters of a strong market economy, even if such results in negative effects of the population.
Until Obama is really faced with the presidential decisions that are required when facing options, we will not know exactly what we are electing. To be sure, many worry about this lack of specifics and his ability to be moderate in his rhetoric without being clear about his actual preferences.
I am hoping that his support of free trade, something that is good not only for our nation but other nations, will not result in his discounting the negative effects of trade policies that do not support human rights, environmental standards, and economic realities.
As she states, one can support free trade while focusing on its current imbalances. I am hoping that Obama will demonstrate such a focus during his administration.
She now writes that Obama has named top economic advisers who come out of this school personally or are supporters of a strong market economy, even if such results in negative effects of the population.
Until Obama is really faced with the presidential decisions that are required when facing options, we will not know exactly what we are electing. To be sure, many worry about this lack of specifics and his ability to be moderate in his rhetoric without being clear about his actual preferences.
I am hoping that his support of free trade, something that is good not only for our nation but other nations, will not result in his discounting the negative effects of trade policies that do not support human rights, environmental standards, and economic realities.
As she states, one can support free trade while focusing on its current imbalances. I am hoping that Obama will demonstrate such a focus during his administration.
Kucinich: A Hero for the Constitution!
I have supported any effort to impeach George W. because it bothers me that any future president could believe that breaking the Constitution is not that serious since George W. got away with it! Knowing how negatively such a move would be for the political fortunes, I can understand why his 35 articles of impeachment did not survive (251-161 vote sent the bill to the Judiciary Committee and its death)!
However, the document is worth pursuing even if some of the articles are less convincing than others. Needless to say, there were enough from my perspective to justify the attempt to impeach George W. The lies regarding reasons for invading Iraq were enough to warrant impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.
No president should be able to thwart the Constitution is so many ways and walk away from the Office unscathed!
I admit that it would be terribly frightening to think that successful conviction would result in President Cheney, but it would be for a relatively short time (albeit, it does not take him long to create disaster; he probably would be invading Iran as soon as the oath of office was uttered).
I know that it hard to be so critical of someone elected not once, but twice, by the American public (granted, the outcome of the 2000 election was facilitated by the Supreme Court).
Only 219 more days!
However, the document is worth pursuing even if some of the articles are less convincing than others. Needless to say, there were enough from my perspective to justify the attempt to impeach George W. The lies regarding reasons for invading Iraq were enough to warrant impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.
No president should be able to thwart the Constitution is so many ways and walk away from the Office unscathed!
I admit that it would be terribly frightening to think that successful conviction would result in President Cheney, but it would be for a relatively short time (albeit, it does not take him long to create disaster; he probably would be invading Iran as soon as the oath of office was uttered).
I know that it hard to be so critical of someone elected not once, but twice, by the American public (granted, the outcome of the 2000 election was facilitated by the Supreme Court).
Only 219 more days!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
"What Happened" by Scott McClellan
There is nothing in Scott McClellan's book that has not been well documented by others. Points made by those who noted Bush's incompetence, his lack of openness, his proclivity to secrecy, his prostitution of the Constitution to justify to torture and lies have been well-documented. But, when the source of this information is one of those who came from Bush's history in Texas, a person with clear political history, it is noteworthy.
There is one major point that McClellan makes that is worthy of emphasis. He attacks the persistent need to promote those issues designed to make yourself and your party stronger in the coming election. The need to keep campaigning while governing results in an inability to be honest and transparent, to promote policies through deception rather than full discussion of the issues at stake, and neglect of the center in order to satisfy the base of the party's political support.
It is unclear whether his goal of focusing mainly on the needs of citizens rather than the desires of the party is realistic. Even in a parliamentary system, it is essential to get the support of your constituents or there is a vote of no confidence. What is true is that the Bush administration went further down the road than prior administrations to the point that the problem is highlighted. While I have hopes that the Obama administration will be transparent (they have initiatives to have all meetings open to the public and the possible use of internet for him to get public feedback prior to signing legislation), I am aware that politics is inherently designed to satisfy some more than others. It is hoped that the "some" is large enough to constitute a majority.
There is one major point that McClellan makes that is worthy of emphasis. He attacks the persistent need to promote those issues designed to make yourself and your party stronger in the coming election. The need to keep campaigning while governing results in an inability to be honest and transparent, to promote policies through deception rather than full discussion of the issues at stake, and neglect of the center in order to satisfy the base of the party's political support.
It is unclear whether his goal of focusing mainly on the needs of citizens rather than the desires of the party is realistic. Even in a parliamentary system, it is essential to get the support of your constituents or there is a vote of no confidence. What is true is that the Bush administration went further down the road than prior administrations to the point that the problem is highlighted. While I have hopes that the Obama administration will be transparent (they have initiatives to have all meetings open to the public and the possible use of internet for him to get public feedback prior to signing legislation), I am aware that politics is inherently designed to satisfy some more than others. It is hoped that the "some" is large enough to constitute a majority.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Life in the Fast Track!
In every chapter of life, there is a pace achieved that becomes homeostatic. As grandparents, we are searching for this homeostasis! We know that there is a point in time when everything is in sync! We look around the corner for the moment.
At this point, we are seeing the challenge of meeting eyes that won't quit, smiles that melt you, and cries that bug you! But we would not change the situation! We know the moment when the fast track ends, we will be that much closer to our eternal peace!
Moment to Rejoice!
It is hard to believe that we have reached the point where we know that a black person will run for the office of President of the United States! It is a moment to rejoice!
While it would have been great to see a female as president, I do not think that Hillary Clinton was the right person. Not only did she come with her "baggage", she also was coming with her husband who is a serious liability.
In contrast, Obama is the epitome of the right person to represent the unique category of a black nominee for the President. He has kept a level of calmness and consistency throughout the campaign. When in a bind, he did what he had to do without getting too angry and losing his sense of proportion. Somehow, he seemed to be a person big enough to assume this special office. He surely showed his ability to convey a vision for change last night during his acceptance speech.
While there are four more months of campaigning between the conventions and the general election, I look forward to his presence in the Oval Office. I look forward to people of color in the White House. I look forward to a time when electing a minority (eventually, such will be a white person) or a female will be no big deal. For the moment though, it is a moment to rejoice!
While it would have been great to see a female as president, I do not think that Hillary Clinton was the right person. Not only did she come with her "baggage", she also was coming with her husband who is a serious liability.
In contrast, Obama is the epitome of the right person to represent the unique category of a black nominee for the President. He has kept a level of calmness and consistency throughout the campaign. When in a bind, he did what he had to do without getting too angry and losing his sense of proportion. Somehow, he seemed to be a person big enough to assume this special office. He surely showed his ability to convey a vision for change last night during his acceptance speech.
While there are four more months of campaigning between the conventions and the general election, I look forward to his presence in the Oval Office. I look forward to people of color in the White House. I look forward to a time when electing a minority (eventually, such will be a white person) or a female will be no big deal. For the moment though, it is a moment to rejoice!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)