Jesus, Is this what Americans can expect in the post 911 era. If it is I don't like the excuse. Yesterday a college kid gets tasered and jailed, because he didn't give up the microphone fast enough. Now I hear that a 70 year old grandmother is arrested for not fixing her brown lawn. Have Americans lost all reason and compassion for the world let alone other Americans. Is a 70 year old grandmother more likely to be a terrorist than 6 years ago.
The post 911 era shouldn't be an excuse for law enforcement to disregard reason and compassion when dealing with Americans. What happened to Protect and Serve? Who was protected or served in either of these events.
This isn't the America I fought for in Viet Nam. Shame on you and the ones who would say that jailing a 70 year old grandmother is the price we pay for being in the post 911 era.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Bush just brings the best out of me
The current President can rant and rave all he wants to about Viet Nam and Iraq, and what America should have learned, but he can't change the fact that Iraq is a mistake, on his call, and that Americans and Iraqis continue to pay the ultimate price for that error. Maybe if he would have served in Viet Nam he might have learned that American's won't continue to support a war that they don't understand, that's the way democracy works. If the president would have answered his country's call in Viet Nam, he might have had the character and experience he needed for 911, and America wouldn't have this festering puss hole of a war to deal with.
Make no mistake, George W. Bush is forcing America to re-live the mistakes of Viet Nam. Not to keep Americans free, but to prove that America didn't learn something about the President's power, the American people's support and war. I think we learned something as a country in Viet Nam, the President would have us forget that and the troops who helped us learn that lesson.
Nobody should have to die for George W. Bush's idea of America. He truly will be the last person in the world to understand invading Baghdad was a mistake. All the reasons were articulated by Cheney in 1994.
Make no mistake, George W. Bush is forcing America to re-live the mistakes of Viet Nam. Not to keep Americans free, but to prove that America didn't learn something about the President's power, the American people's support and war. I think we learned something as a country in Viet Nam, the President would have us forget that and the troops who helped us learn that lesson.
Nobody should have to die for George W. Bush's idea of America. He truly will be the last person in the world to understand invading Baghdad was a mistake. All the reasons were articulated by Cheney in 1994.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Promise
My memory is longer than to the next election. I will remember the Senators and Congressmen that are not voting to change the Bush administration's US military strategy in Iraq. They will not get my vote. I will vote for the other guy I don't care who he is.
George W. Bush has had more than 4 years to adjust and clean up his mistakes. To ask for more time now is asking American's to continue paying for his errors.
George W. Bush has had more than 4 years to adjust and clean up his mistakes. To ask for more time now is asking American's to continue paying for his errors.
Friday, May 04, 2007
A Cry in the Void
That's it, the Republicans are just a bunch of war mongers. I used to think that it was just an anomaly in the Republican party, shown by the George W. Bush administration. After all, what sane person would start a preemptive war and not plan or prepare for the effort it would take. Even more so, what sane adult would claim principals that would position themselves in a corner, and thus leave little choice but war.
After reading up on the Republican candidate debate last night. I realized that all of the Republican candidates have positioned themselves as having to do something to protect America from Iran. While I agree that Iran is a problem, I think it is problematic that all the Republican candidates have already started painting themselves in a corner in regard to the problems in Iran. If the American people elect one of them to the President will he consider that a mandate to start a preemptive war with Iran. In the past American's would note that a candidate's style in debate would leave them little choice of action in the end. It's not a good trait. We want our leaders to have a lot of choices when it comes to America and conflict, and we want them to make the best choice.
When did pandering to American's fears become the way to get a vote. Do American's really believe that they now have something to fear from the rest of the world. Better yet, do American's believe that the government can save them. If so, America has fallen a long way from 1776 and the government seems to be leading the way.
America has never backed away from a fight, but until recently our leaders were smart enough to find the most effective way to win before engaging. Not so today. Our leaders today use the fear of our loss and our fear of loss in vain, in an attempt to spin and justify our nation's actions. Where are the statesman of America today? The leaders who have the humility to understand the lessons of Viet Nam and Iraq, and act based on that knowledge. Where are our leaders who know that America's greatness is not in our military and weapons, but the in minds of its people. What are we doing as Americans to keep our real greatness intact?
After reading up on the Republican candidate debate last night. I realized that all of the Republican candidates have positioned themselves as having to do something to protect America from Iran. While I agree that Iran is a problem, I think it is problematic that all the Republican candidates have already started painting themselves in a corner in regard to the problems in Iran. If the American people elect one of them to the President will he consider that a mandate to start a preemptive war with Iran. In the past American's would note that a candidate's style in debate would leave them little choice of action in the end. It's not a good trait. We want our leaders to have a lot of choices when it comes to America and conflict, and we want them to make the best choice.
When did pandering to American's fears become the way to get a vote. Do American's really believe that they now have something to fear from the rest of the world. Better yet, do American's believe that the government can save them. If so, America has fallen a long way from 1776 and the government seems to be leading the way.
America has never backed away from a fight, but until recently our leaders were smart enough to find the most effective way to win before engaging. Not so today. Our leaders today use the fear of our loss and our fear of loss in vain, in an attempt to spin and justify our nation's actions. Where are the statesman of America today? The leaders who have the humility to understand the lessons of Viet Nam and Iraq, and act based on that knowledge. Where are our leaders who know that America's greatness is not in our military and weapons, but the in minds of its people. What are we doing as Americans to keep our real greatness intact?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Thought for today
How is it that the will of the American people can get Don Imus suspended for two weeks for saying something stupid on the air, but we can't stop the Bush administration from starting and promoting a war that kills Americans and Iraqis everyday. Most of us have had enough and we tell the administration in polls, and we elect Democrats to congress, and still the Bush administration doesn't hear.
Friday, March 23, 2007
A View of the American Democratic System
I was taught in school that America isn't a direct democracy, it is a representative democracy. That means the the people don't elect the president they vote for electoral candidates who elect the president. The way it was explained to me in school was in revolutionary times it wasn't possible to know the presidential candidates and what they stood for, communications being what it was. So we voted for someone we knew and trusted, to vote for the president for us. I can see that this was a good solution for those times. It seems there was a lot more trust going around then. It seems to me a lot more trustworthy people too.
When I look at the electoral system today it seems a little inefficient when serving the will of people. The president has a lot of power in this system to be independent of the will of the people and press his will on the people even if that isn't really the current will of the people. It seems to me that past presidents have acknowledged the current will of the people by acknowledging polls. Most presidents in the past have tried to gage the current will of the people, as they knew it, and used it in the deciding process.
For example President Roosevelt knew that it was in America's interest to help Europe in WW2 but he understood that with war, the will of the people is more important than his will. The president waited till he knew the will of the people would support the sacrifices and hardships that would be required for war. He didn't minimize the impacts or duration of the war, but described the purpose of the war in a way Americans could understand. In contrast the current administration did minimize the impacts and failed to define an accurate threat to the American people. Finally his administration tried to spin, support of the war as the only choice the American people have, without giving them a valid reason.
Have you noticed that polls in our new age of communications have gotten really accurate + or – 3 percent. Well, maybe not that accurate, but when a poll says that 60 to 70 percent of the people do not share the will of the president, well that seems like something a smart man representing the will of the people would take into account in his decision making. In fact, not using it would mean he is not doing the job he was elected to do.
The current president has given me reason to rethink the trust I have that the president will serve the current will of the people. In the face of an election in which the Republican party lost the majority in the House and the Senate and polls which show and overwhelming majority of Americans are not in agreement with his current policy in Iraq, the current president is pressing his will over the American people. I'm not sure this is what our for fathers meant when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I'd like to think that stonewalling the will of the American people is a power the President of America lost, when he could go on prime time TV make his case, and the polls show he doesn't have the support and will of the American people. In other countries like Great Brittan and Israel, the legislature can vote no confidence and the Prime Minister has to prove he has support to stay in power. It seems to work. Brittan is getting out of Iraq.
Do you want another president in the future to take America to war in spite of the will of the American people. Do you want another president in the future to start a preemptive war that disregards the lessons learned in Viet Nam and now in Iraq.
Then you better start asking hard questions to candidates about how they feel about the current will of the people. Because nobody asked Bush, he thinks he is a king who can tell the American people to, sacrifice their young people in spite of their will.
American people have long trusted our leaders to work the will of the people while in office. Current events seem to show that this trust is not warranted. It is not right for American elected officers to benefit from instant communication to the public while disregarding elections and polls as true measures of the current will of the people.
When I look at the electoral system today it seems a little inefficient when serving the will of people. The president has a lot of power in this system to be independent of the will of the people and press his will on the people even if that isn't really the current will of the people. It seems to me that past presidents have acknowledged the current will of the people by acknowledging polls. Most presidents in the past have tried to gage the current will of the people, as they knew it, and used it in the deciding process.
For example President Roosevelt knew that it was in America's interest to help Europe in WW2 but he understood that with war, the will of the people is more important than his will. The president waited till he knew the will of the people would support the sacrifices and hardships that would be required for war. He didn't minimize the impacts or duration of the war, but described the purpose of the war in a way Americans could understand. In contrast the current administration did minimize the impacts and failed to define an accurate threat to the American people. Finally his administration tried to spin, support of the war as the only choice the American people have, without giving them a valid reason.
Have you noticed that polls in our new age of communications have gotten really accurate + or – 3 percent. Well, maybe not that accurate, but when a poll says that 60 to 70 percent of the people do not share the will of the president, well that seems like something a smart man representing the will of the people would take into account in his decision making. In fact, not using it would mean he is not doing the job he was elected to do.
The current president has given me reason to rethink the trust I have that the president will serve the current will of the people. In the face of an election in which the Republican party lost the majority in the House and the Senate and polls which show and overwhelming majority of Americans are not in agreement with his current policy in Iraq, the current president is pressing his will over the American people. I'm not sure this is what our for fathers meant when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I'd like to think that stonewalling the will of the American people is a power the President of America lost, when he could go on prime time TV make his case, and the polls show he doesn't have the support and will of the American people. In other countries like Great Brittan and Israel, the legislature can vote no confidence and the Prime Minister has to prove he has support to stay in power. It seems to work. Brittan is getting out of Iraq.
Do you want another president in the future to take America to war in spite of the will of the American people. Do you want another president in the future to start a preemptive war that disregards the lessons learned in Viet Nam and now in Iraq.
Then you better start asking hard questions to candidates about how they feel about the current will of the people. Because nobody asked Bush, he thinks he is a king who can tell the American people to, sacrifice their young people in spite of their will.
American people have long trusted our leaders to work the will of the people while in office. Current events seem to show that this trust is not warranted. It is not right for American elected officers to benefit from instant communication to the public while disregarding elections and polls as true measures of the current will of the people.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
I'm back...
Well I got locked out of my blog, but Google has helped me get back in. I am working on my current impressions of the American Democratic system, of which I am not an expert but just an American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)