A little discussion about some headlines from today's paper...
1) It's Election Day in a few states...New York, New Jersey, Virginia to name a few. If you listen to the polls, it's going to be a strong Republican showing. Not surprisingly, the Republicans are calling this a referendum on Obama...a foreshadowing of things to come in 2010. The Democrats are saying this has more to do with state politics and poorly run campaigns. As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. However, the President's falling approval numbers may be an indicator that his "honeymoon" is over. I had a doctor's appointment yesterday. My doctor is a very smart, very informed woman. She is always aware of all of the new, cutting edge health information. Last year, we had a brief political discussion prior to my check up, and she expressed her confidence in Obama. She was ready for a "change". This year, it was her opinion that had "changed". For the first 10 minutes of my appointment, she launched into an in depth discussion about how she was appalled at how the President was "plowing through an agenda that was going to hurt a lot of people." She expressed dismay that he hadn't taken a more measured approach. She was livid that the health care agenda had become so politicized, and she was sure that the 'end game' of helping those who truly need help had been traded in for political gain.
I sat quietly and tried to take it all in. This is not a woman who is concerned with making as much money as she can. This is a doctor who will sit and chat about your health for an hour, and discuss the pros and cons of everything. Her total reversal on things really surprised me.
2) I heard on the news this morning that more and more parents are paying upwards of $100 an hour to hire personal trainers for their children because they are over-weight. I just do not understand this. I mean, I understand having someone teach a child how to workout properly...how to swing a bat...how to score more goals....how to serve correctly.....But please. I think that I, as a parent, can take responsibility for fixing healthy meals, turn off the video games and TV, and send my kids out to play...and throw away the Halloween candy when I notice that they are eating more than a few pieces a day. We have become a country of people who just look for the easy way out. Just pay someone else to take care of the kids. It's ridiculous. And quite frankly, without judgement or malice intended, if you look at the parents who are doing this, you will find in most cases that they are the ones that need the trainers...
3) Ok, on a similar note, you can now buy a GPS system that tracks where your kids are 24/7. As a mother with 4 kids, I can totally understand the feeling of control and comfort that this might instill in a parent. But as the mother of The Senior, let me warn you that there is not GPS anywhere that can keep up with a teenager who does not want to be kept up with. When The Senior was sent to the grocery store, she would indeed go to the store, but there were many stops on the way. My point is, there has to be a trust factor, or all is lost. Having said that, when you, the parent, are the only one abiding by this "trust" rule, steps have to be taken. It's so tempting to become the "helicopter parents" that we keep reading about these days. To micro-manage our kids in order to assure their safety and success. But I am afraid this might backfire...and we might end up with a generation of kids who sit back and wait for mom and dad to take care of everything. The key is always the 'happy medium', isn't it? And who knows where that is? I am determined to try and follow the path of "choice, decisions and consequences" with The Boy and Little One. In other words....you have a choice, you make a decision...and you live with the consequences.
Of course, it is easy to get on my judgemental high-horse when my 2 older ones are beyond all of this....and my 2 younger ones are not yet to the point of no return........Talk to me in about 5 more years....and then have a good laugh at how my opinions have changed....
So that's it for today. It's a beautiful day, much too pretty to sit around worrying about personal trainers and politics.....and until tomorrow, when the overnight Zoo trip is just around the corner....
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Politics is suppose to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize it bears a strong ressemblance to the first." ...Ronald Reagan
The President is speaking on tv tonight, once again trying to convince us that his health-care bill is what we want. I have a suggestion...why can't we focus on the areas of agreement? Why can't we start with coverage for pre-existing conditions...for those who have lost their jobs? There are several areas where everyone seems to agree...so why not start there? This so-called "public option", whether real or imagined, has scared everyone off. Can our Great-Communicator not see this? At best, the public option will give more people coverage, but the cost will be exorbitant. At it's worst, it's going to force some private health-care out, or the costs to sky-rocket.
The President needs to face the fact that he has not sold this program well. Leaving it the hands of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has turned it into an ugly "them vs us" thing. Americans are compassionate people. If you got to them honestly and explain why there is a need, it will usually be met. But we are not a people who like having anything shoved down our throats. And after months of stimulus packages that are costing a fortune without showing much result (thus far), I think people are saying "What 's the rush? Slow down and do it right."
I think our President was caught off-guard by his falling approval ratings. He has a bit of arrogance that made him think that he could convince anyone of anything. But he needs to take a long, hard look at what he is doing. With only 39% of people supporting this bill...he hasn't gotten it done. And when, as President, you start believing that You know what is best for the American people...even when they have told you differently....When members of your own party are hesitating and hiding....When you have caused the "crazies" on the opposing side to come out...this is when you need to take a step back and remember that you were elected to carry out what the American people want...not to fulfill your own agenda, whatever that may be.
This whole issue has leaked everywhere...and now The President is going to have to tread carefully. Imagine the uproar that he caused yesterday by speaking to our elementary school children. This should have been a non-issue. The fact that the President would take the time to address the kids should have been a great thing. I read the transcripts...there was nothing "inflammatory" in his talk. How can encouraging kids to work hard to succeed be a bad thing? How can pointing out that he wishes he would have worked harder as a student be considered leftist or conservative? But here's the deal....the moderates and conservatives have become suspicious of him...and his motives. Anything he does from here on out is going to be debated because he mis-calculated how far his persona would carry him.
In my opinion, he needs to take a step back. What he owes the American people is more explanation and less chastising. Stop making fun or putting down people who don't agree with you...it doesn't mean they are stupid...it doesn't indicate a decaying of public discourse...it just means they don't agree with you! Take the time and effort to spell out your plans...and then accept that you cannot shove an agenda down people's throats without consequences...
So that is it for today's political lecture...I realize I lost a chunk of readership with the words "our President'...but it can't all be fashion and cell phones, can it?
Until tomorrow, when we will return to more pressing matters....
The President needs to face the fact that he has not sold this program well. Leaving it the hands of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has turned it into an ugly "them vs us" thing. Americans are compassionate people. If you got to them honestly and explain why there is a need, it will usually be met. But we are not a people who like having anything shoved down our throats. And after months of stimulus packages that are costing a fortune without showing much result (thus far), I think people are saying "What 's the rush? Slow down and do it right."
I think our President was caught off-guard by his falling approval ratings. He has a bit of arrogance that made him think that he could convince anyone of anything. But he needs to take a long, hard look at what he is doing. With only 39% of people supporting this bill...he hasn't gotten it done. And when, as President, you start believing that You know what is best for the American people...even when they have told you differently....When members of your own party are hesitating and hiding....When you have caused the "crazies" on the opposing side to come out...this is when you need to take a step back and remember that you were elected to carry out what the American people want...not to fulfill your own agenda, whatever that may be.
This whole issue has leaked everywhere...and now The President is going to have to tread carefully. Imagine the uproar that he caused yesterday by speaking to our elementary school children. This should have been a non-issue. The fact that the President would take the time to address the kids should have been a great thing. I read the transcripts...there was nothing "inflammatory" in his talk. How can encouraging kids to work hard to succeed be a bad thing? How can pointing out that he wishes he would have worked harder as a student be considered leftist or conservative? But here's the deal....the moderates and conservatives have become suspicious of him...and his motives. Anything he does from here on out is going to be debated because he mis-calculated how far his persona would carry him.
In my opinion, he needs to take a step back. What he owes the American people is more explanation and less chastising. Stop making fun or putting down people who don't agree with you...it doesn't mean they are stupid...it doesn't indicate a decaying of public discourse...it just means they don't agree with you! Take the time and effort to spell out your plans...and then accept that you cannot shove an agenda down people's throats without consequences...
So that is it for today's political lecture...I realize I lost a chunk of readership with the words "our President'...but it can't all be fashion and cell phones, can it?
Until tomorrow, when we will return to more pressing matters....
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
On Health-Care and such
I haven't discussed politics for weeks. I've been trying to find a way to discuss health -care reform in a studied, yet candid manor, but it has alluded me. This has been a debate that I have carried on for years with some friends, especially some from France, where I too have witnessed the good side of socialized medicine...but the truth of the matter is...even the most liberal of the French will tell you that the system is far from perfect...and that despite the fact that maternity leave, daycare, etc. are top-notch, they come at a price.
Our President has been on a rampage lately, espousing his views at town hall meetings, and calling anyone who disagrees a cynic. All of a sudden, this has become a "do or die' issue. All or none. Either you agree with him...or you are participating in a "decline of civil debate". In response to this, Dorothy Rabinowitz crafted a beautiful response in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. So instead of trying to write about it myself, today I choose to quote Dorothy:
"That treatment, or rather it's memory-__like the adulation of his great mass of voters__has had its effect on our President, and not all to good. The election over, the warming glow of those armies of supporters gone, his capacity to tolerate criticism and dissent from his policies grows thinner apace. His lectures, explaining his health-care proposals, and why they'll be good for everybody, are clearly not going down well with his national audience.
This would have to do with the fact that the real Barack Obama-product of the academic left, social reformer with a program, is now before that audience, and what they hear in this lecture about one of the central concerns in their lives__his message freighted with generalities__they are not prepared to believe that our first most important concern is now health-care reform or all will go under.
The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds__he is at home withe those. He is a stranger to the country's heart and character.
He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don't take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health-care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don't know if they want to go and being told it's good for them.
Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer__the same who listened to those speeches of his during his campaign, searching for their meaning.
I took this battle over health-care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation-repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgement of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him."
Amen.
Our President has been on a rampage lately, espousing his views at town hall meetings, and calling anyone who disagrees a cynic. All of a sudden, this has become a "do or die' issue. All or none. Either you agree with him...or you are participating in a "decline of civil debate". In response to this, Dorothy Rabinowitz crafted a beautiful response in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. So instead of trying to write about it myself, today I choose to quote Dorothy:
"That treatment, or rather it's memory-__like the adulation of his great mass of voters__has had its effect on our President, and not all to good. The election over, the warming glow of those armies of supporters gone, his capacity to tolerate criticism and dissent from his policies grows thinner apace. His lectures, explaining his health-care proposals, and why they'll be good for everybody, are clearly not going down well with his national audience.
This would have to do with the fact that the real Barack Obama-product of the academic left, social reformer with a program, is now before that audience, and what they hear in this lecture about one of the central concerns in their lives__his message freighted with generalities__they are not prepared to believe that our first most important concern is now health-care reform or all will go under.
The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds__he is at home withe those. He is a stranger to the country's heart and character.
He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don't take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health-care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don't know if they want to go and being told it's good for them.
Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer__the same who listened to those speeches of his during his campaign, searching for their meaning.
I took this battle over health-care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation-repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgement of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him."
Amen.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I Was Wrong About Sarah Palin
10 months ago, Sarah Palin was thrust to national acclaim by being nominated as John McCain's running mate. Though she was Govenor of Alaska at the time, she was little known...a blank page so to speak. I was totally enamoured with her at the time. Here was a mother of 5, one of whom was challenged, who was accomplished, energetic, charming and seemingly capable. I was strangely touched that this woman with whom I felt I had so much in common, was being considered for one of the highest political positions we have.
I was appalled at the way he press went after her. Before she even had a chance to speak at the convention, word of her teenage daughter being pregnant was being blast all over the papers and TV. My heart went out to the family, though I was privately curious as to why the campaign would have not just "put that out there", knowing full well that there are no secrets in politics.
Her convention speech was amazing, so I wasn't even put off when the patronizing and condescending Charlie Gibson tried to trip her up with the "Bush Doctrine". I mean, I am fairly aware politically..and I had no idea what the reference was...there were even some news commentators that said they probably couldn't define it...so no big deal.
As time went on, I became nervous whenever she had to speak, because it felt like her understanding of deeper subjects was not thorough. But I chalked it up to lack of experience...and hey, our President was saying we had 56 states and calling Iran a "tiny" country, so there was plenty of "knowledge deprivation" to go around.
After the terrible interview with Katie Couric, I was disappointed. It was obvious that Couric was just looking for a crack...but Palin showed her a huge whole. The whole "You can see Russia from my house" thing was embarrassing, but the fact that she could not articulate what she read bothered me even more. I mean, let's face it, if someone asks you what you read...it is like being asked what you eat...no brainer. I read the Wall Street Journal every morning...and sometimes the local paper. How hard is it to say that?...unless you do not read anything. Now at the time, I made excuses for her...she froze, she got defensive...I was still willing to stand behind her. I was just waiting for her to "get up to speed". Unfortunately, it did not happen before the campaign ended.
In last weekend's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Newnan once again skewered Palin, albeit in a gentle way. She never liked her...the feminist journalists can never like anyone who is conservative or attractive. But she did allow that Palin was charming and energetic, with loads of potential...potential that was just never achieved.
I held out hope that after the election she would just go home and study....read...learn...so that she could answer questions with a depth of knowledge that should be expected from our leaders. But I don't think she did it. And listen, half of the senate and congress can't do it...but they would not be subject to 1/10 of the scrutiny that she is. She has been more unfairly attacked I believe than anyone who has ever run for office...I mean the attacks have been ugly, personal, vitrious and appalling...but in the end, if you cannot take the heat, you have to either get out of the kitchen, or learn how to ignore it, And I don't think she can do it.
I am always an optomist, so I will take exception to Newnan's assertion that Palin is hopeless...but my hopes are fading.
And on another political note...can our President please learn how to speak without a tele-prompter?....speeches should not have to end because it breaks...
And please ...LEARN HOW TO THROW OUT A FIRST PITCH!...He threw like a girl at last night's All Star game....very embarrassing.....Bush had his problems, but he could throw a ball...
So until tomorrow, when I will continue to hope for the best in our politicians, but expect very little sometimes...
I was appalled at the way he press went after her. Before she even had a chance to speak at the convention, word of her teenage daughter being pregnant was being blast all over the papers and TV. My heart went out to the family, though I was privately curious as to why the campaign would have not just "put that out there", knowing full well that there are no secrets in politics.
Her convention speech was amazing, so I wasn't even put off when the patronizing and condescending Charlie Gibson tried to trip her up with the "Bush Doctrine". I mean, I am fairly aware politically..and I had no idea what the reference was...there were even some news commentators that said they probably couldn't define it...so no big deal.
As time went on, I became nervous whenever she had to speak, because it felt like her understanding of deeper subjects was not thorough. But I chalked it up to lack of experience...and hey, our President was saying we had 56 states and calling Iran a "tiny" country, so there was plenty of "knowledge deprivation" to go around.
After the terrible interview with Katie Couric, I was disappointed. It was obvious that Couric was just looking for a crack...but Palin showed her a huge whole. The whole "You can see Russia from my house" thing was embarrassing, but the fact that she could not articulate what she read bothered me even more. I mean, let's face it, if someone asks you what you read...it is like being asked what you eat...no brainer. I read the Wall Street Journal every morning...and sometimes the local paper. How hard is it to say that?...unless you do not read anything. Now at the time, I made excuses for her...she froze, she got defensive...I was still willing to stand behind her. I was just waiting for her to "get up to speed". Unfortunately, it did not happen before the campaign ended.
In last weekend's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Newnan once again skewered Palin, albeit in a gentle way. She never liked her...the feminist journalists can never like anyone who is conservative or attractive. But she did allow that Palin was charming and energetic, with loads of potential...potential that was just never achieved.
I held out hope that after the election she would just go home and study....read...learn...so that she could answer questions with a depth of knowledge that should be expected from our leaders. But I don't think she did it. And listen, half of the senate and congress can't do it...but they would not be subject to 1/10 of the scrutiny that she is. She has been more unfairly attacked I believe than anyone who has ever run for office...I mean the attacks have been ugly, personal, vitrious and appalling...but in the end, if you cannot take the heat, you have to either get out of the kitchen, or learn how to ignore it, And I don't think she can do it.
I am always an optomist, so I will take exception to Newnan's assertion that Palin is hopeless...but my hopes are fading.
And on another political note...can our President please learn how to speak without a tele-prompter?....speeches should not have to end because it breaks...
And please ...LEARN HOW TO THROW OUT A FIRST PITCH!...He threw like a girl at last night's All Star game....very embarrassing.....Bush had his problems, but he could throw a ball...
So until tomorrow, when I will continue to hope for the best in our politicians, but expect very little sometimes...
Friday, April 24, 2009
We Interrupt Our Regularly Scheduled Program...
Today was suppose to be Fun Friday. I was going to give my additions to "the List". But unfortunately, I went through the check out line at the grocery store last night, and the subject had to change.
I've kept quiet politically the last few weeks. I held my tongue when the President told his French audience that Americans were arrogant. I didn't respond when he bowed to the Saudi Arabian King (and then said that he was only "picking up a penny") I didn't scream when he decided that "terrorists" would now be referred to as "enemy combatants" (although my heart went out to all of those victims and their families from 9/11 who had to hear that). I tried to remain calm when he said he was closing Guantanamo Bay without knowing where the prisoners would go.
But his past week has pushed me overboard. Would somebody please explain to me how you can mug it up with dictators like Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers, yet talk about how water-boarding the guys who participated in the 9/11 attacks was immoral? Does anyone besides me see the hypocrisy here? Our journalist, Danny Pearl, was beheaded for being Jewish, and nobody apologizes to us, but we use some tactics (with doctors present, mind you) to get information out of KNOWN bad guys, and our President feels the need to go around the world on some sort of "I Apologize For America" tour.
As I stood in the grocery line last night, 8 out of 10 magazines had some sort of picture of Obama on the front. This ridiculous hero-worship thing has gotten out of hand. Can someone please tell our President to PUT A SHIRT ON. I have no desire to see my President running on the beach without his shirt. Another magazine tells us "How Barrack and Michelle Keep their Love Alive" .....STOP!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to know! Too much information. Listen, I'm happy they seem to have a good marriage. So did Ronald and Nancy, Jimmy and Rosalind, George and Barbara...the list goes on and on. Why is this news?
In a town hall meeting in Los Angeles, the President made a reference about the show "Gossip Girls". Does this not bother anyone but me? The fact that he has even heard about that show weirds me out. His girls are too young to know about it. It sure doesn't seem like Michelle's genre...so how the heck does he know about it? And another thing...I don't want to see him up on any stage hugging Fergie of the Black-Eyed Peas! It's just all too "Mr. Hollywood comes to Washington". Is anybody worried like me that instead of monitoring the blunders of his Secretary of Homeland Security (who just this week ticked off our friends and neighbors in Canada by falsely claiming that participants in the 9/11 attacks came through the Canadian borders), he and Michelle are sitting in bed with a copy of US magazine at night reading articles about themselves and giggling?
Last week he listened to Daniel Ortega, the dictator that Reagan worked so hard to have ousted from his Nicaraguan regime, give a blistering thesis on the United States...only to respond by joking about being glad that "Ortega didn't blame me for things that happened when I was three").
In my view, this apologist stuff has gone far enough. He's not speaking for me anymore...and I think millions of Americans feel the same way. I'm all for trying to get along in the world, but not at the cost of sacrificing the values of our country. And I find his arrogance to be a little scary. The view that somehow HE is going to lead the world to peace is not only naive...but seriously misleading. He has said he will sit down with Iranian president Ahmadinejad, you know, the guy who claims the Holocaust didn't happen and called Israel a country of racists? He's going to sit down with him and discuss the fact that they have ramped up their WMD program...and I guess he's thinks he's going to talk him out of it...you know...use his "I'm Barrack Obama, I'm a nice guy" charm...and Ahmadinejad will immediately disarm and agree to "behave".
I've tried to keep quiet. I've chastised Limbaugh, Hannity and all of the other extreme right-wingers for not shutting up and giving him a chance. But my patience is running out. I am the kind of person who apologizes easily when I feel I'm wrong. The words "I'm Sorry" come out of my mouth everyday. But I do not like the concept of apologizing when I did nothing wrong...or apologizing to be magnanimous...or even worse, someone making apologies for me when I didn't ask them to....
So until next week, when the subjects will be lighter, the "List" will grow longer, and we'll go to Paris for a few days....I promise.
I've kept quiet politically the last few weeks. I held my tongue when the President told his French audience that Americans were arrogant. I didn't respond when he bowed to the Saudi Arabian King (and then said that he was only "picking up a penny") I didn't scream when he decided that "terrorists" would now be referred to as "enemy combatants" (although my heart went out to all of those victims and their families from 9/11 who had to hear that). I tried to remain calm when he said he was closing Guantanamo Bay without knowing where the prisoners would go.
But his past week has pushed me overboard. Would somebody please explain to me how you can mug it up with dictators like Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers, yet talk about how water-boarding the guys who participated in the 9/11 attacks was immoral? Does anyone besides me see the hypocrisy here? Our journalist, Danny Pearl, was beheaded for being Jewish, and nobody apologizes to us, but we use some tactics (with doctors present, mind you) to get information out of KNOWN bad guys, and our President feels the need to go around the world on some sort of "I Apologize For America" tour.
As I stood in the grocery line last night, 8 out of 10 magazines had some sort of picture of Obama on the front. This ridiculous hero-worship thing has gotten out of hand. Can someone please tell our President to PUT A SHIRT ON. I have no desire to see my President running on the beach without his shirt. Another magazine tells us "How Barrack and Michelle Keep their Love Alive" .....STOP!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to know! Too much information. Listen, I'm happy they seem to have a good marriage. So did Ronald and Nancy, Jimmy and Rosalind, George and Barbara...the list goes on and on. Why is this news?
In a town hall meeting in Los Angeles, the President made a reference about the show "Gossip Girls". Does this not bother anyone but me? The fact that he has even heard about that show weirds me out. His girls are too young to know about it. It sure doesn't seem like Michelle's genre...so how the heck does he know about it? And another thing...I don't want to see him up on any stage hugging Fergie of the Black-Eyed Peas! It's just all too "Mr. Hollywood comes to Washington". Is anybody worried like me that instead of monitoring the blunders of his Secretary of Homeland Security (who just this week ticked off our friends and neighbors in Canada by falsely claiming that participants in the 9/11 attacks came through the Canadian borders), he and Michelle are sitting in bed with a copy of US magazine at night reading articles about themselves and giggling?
Last week he listened to Daniel Ortega, the dictator that Reagan worked so hard to have ousted from his Nicaraguan regime, give a blistering thesis on the United States...only to respond by joking about being glad that "Ortega didn't blame me for things that happened when I was three").
In my view, this apologist stuff has gone far enough. He's not speaking for me anymore...and I think millions of Americans feel the same way. I'm all for trying to get along in the world, but not at the cost of sacrificing the values of our country. And I find his arrogance to be a little scary. The view that somehow HE is going to lead the world to peace is not only naive...but seriously misleading. He has said he will sit down with Iranian president Ahmadinejad, you know, the guy who claims the Holocaust didn't happen and called Israel a country of racists? He's going to sit down with him and discuss the fact that they have ramped up their WMD program...and I guess he's thinks he's going to talk him out of it...you know...use his "I'm Barrack Obama, I'm a nice guy" charm...and Ahmadinejad will immediately disarm and agree to "behave".
I've tried to keep quiet. I've chastised Limbaugh, Hannity and all of the other extreme right-wingers for not shutting up and giving him a chance. But my patience is running out. I am the kind of person who apologizes easily when I feel I'm wrong. The words "I'm Sorry" come out of my mouth everyday. But I do not like the concept of apologizing when I did nothing wrong...or apologizing to be magnanimous...or even worse, someone making apologies for me when I didn't ask them to....
So until next week, when the subjects will be lighter, the "List" will grow longer, and we'll go to Paris for a few days....I promise.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
I watched with interest yesterday's congressional grilling of AIG Chairman Edward Liddy by Congress. He had been called in so that our congressmen could show their mock outrage at the fact that AIG had gone ahead and paid out retention bonuses to AIG employees despite the fact that it had received billions of dollars in bailout money.
I hesitated to watch, sensing in advance the huge cringe factor that would be involved in seeing all of these congressmen with their prepared statements of outrage, step up to the microphone for their 5 minutes of tv time. But I had read about Liddy, the 63 year old retired businessman, former President and CEO of Allstate, who was called out of retirement last September to step in and "fix" the mess which is AIG. With 38 years of business experience (and a salary of $1) I was interested to see how he would respond to what would inevitably be a barrage of insults and intellectually flimsy allegations by the congressmen. Let me preface by saying that I have no doubt that there were reasonable and substantial questions that could have been asked of Mr. Liddy. Unfortunately, this didn't happen, with a few minor exceptions.
Liddy began with a statement that basically explained that the bonuses that were paid out were all retention bonuses (as opposed to performance bonuses) and that AIG was contractually bound under law to go ahead and pay these. He added that had he been running the company during the time the bonus program was structured, he would not have approved this, but since it was formerly established, the decision had been made that "not paying them would create too much risk" of the company imploding, thus causing more pain to the American tax payer. He added that all decisions had been agreed upon by the Federal Reserve, and that he had been assured that the Treasury (including Geithner) had also been kept in the loop.
As he finished his brief statement, one could see the congressmen, eyes glazed by a lack of understanding, scribbling furiously to amend their notes. One by one, they either asked inept questions of Liddy or made trite proclamations. Rep. Hodes of N.H. said "AIG stood for arrogance, incompetence and greed." I had to turn my head at this point. How long had he worked on that nonsensical tidbit? What good did that do anyone? In front of him stood an intelligent, articulate man who had courageously stepped up to the plate in order to "serve his country" by stepping back in to a cesspool of a company. It was obvious that he was doing his best to make very complicated decisions that were not popular or politically-driven, but long-range efforts to clean up a mess. The one intelligent question that was asked (and I wish I could remember who asked it because he was a lone ranger) was why AIG couldn't decide to break the contracts, not pay the bonuses and dare the recipients to sue. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know the answer to that one. Mr. Liddy's stock response was that there was too much risk involved. He didn't specify if the risk was in losing the employees or being subject to legal ramifications.
In my very lay-person understanding of all of this, it seems that were are in very real danger of developing long-term policies to fit short-term political objectives. We now have a team of congressmen suggesting that "Wall Street pay be tied to long-term performance of firms." I think the better idea is one that was put forward in the Wall Street Journal. Let's tie the pay of the congressmen and legislators to their approval ratings...A 50% approval rating would mean 100% salary, 40% would bring 80% salary, and ....well, you get the picture.
Machiavelli's The Prince (2 references to this in 2 weeks...how surreal?) said that "Lofty ideas lead to bad government." Ayn Rand predicted (in Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) that we were headed towards inevitable economic disaster if we continued on a path towards socialism and a welfare state. Mr. Obama and team might be wise to study the past in order to save the future.
I've been trying to refrain the last few weeks from making any overtly political statements. I naively hope that despite my deep-seated fears, the Obama team will rally and produce results. I am not going to be like Rush Limbaugh and root for defeat, but it is also getting harder and harder to stand by quietly and cross my fingers...
So until tomorrow...when the weekend is in view, and I am not as serious....
I hesitated to watch, sensing in advance the huge cringe factor that would be involved in seeing all of these congressmen with their prepared statements of outrage, step up to the microphone for their 5 minutes of tv time. But I had read about Liddy, the 63 year old retired businessman, former President and CEO of Allstate, who was called out of retirement last September to step in and "fix" the mess which is AIG. With 38 years of business experience (and a salary of $1) I was interested to see how he would respond to what would inevitably be a barrage of insults and intellectually flimsy allegations by the congressmen. Let me preface by saying that I have no doubt that there were reasonable and substantial questions that could have been asked of Mr. Liddy. Unfortunately, this didn't happen, with a few minor exceptions.
Liddy began with a statement that basically explained that the bonuses that were paid out were all retention bonuses (as opposed to performance bonuses) and that AIG was contractually bound under law to go ahead and pay these. He added that had he been running the company during the time the bonus program was structured, he would not have approved this, but since it was formerly established, the decision had been made that "not paying them would create too much risk" of the company imploding, thus causing more pain to the American tax payer. He added that all decisions had been agreed upon by the Federal Reserve, and that he had been assured that the Treasury (including Geithner) had also been kept in the loop.
As he finished his brief statement, one could see the congressmen, eyes glazed by a lack of understanding, scribbling furiously to amend their notes. One by one, they either asked inept questions of Liddy or made trite proclamations. Rep. Hodes of N.H. said "AIG stood for arrogance, incompetence and greed." I had to turn my head at this point. How long had he worked on that nonsensical tidbit? What good did that do anyone? In front of him stood an intelligent, articulate man who had courageously stepped up to the plate in order to "serve his country" by stepping back in to a cesspool of a company. It was obvious that he was doing his best to make very complicated decisions that were not popular or politically-driven, but long-range efforts to clean up a mess. The one intelligent question that was asked (and I wish I could remember who asked it because he was a lone ranger) was why AIG couldn't decide to break the contracts, not pay the bonuses and dare the recipients to sue. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know the answer to that one. Mr. Liddy's stock response was that there was too much risk involved. He didn't specify if the risk was in losing the employees or being subject to legal ramifications.
In my very lay-person understanding of all of this, it seems that were are in very real danger of developing long-term policies to fit short-term political objectives. We now have a team of congressmen suggesting that "Wall Street pay be tied to long-term performance of firms." I think the better idea is one that was put forward in the Wall Street Journal. Let's tie the pay of the congressmen and legislators to their approval ratings...A 50% approval rating would mean 100% salary, 40% would bring 80% salary, and ....well, you get the picture.
Machiavelli's The Prince (2 references to this in 2 weeks...how surreal?) said that "Lofty ideas lead to bad government." Ayn Rand predicted (in Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) that we were headed towards inevitable economic disaster if we continued on a path towards socialism and a welfare state. Mr. Obama and team might be wise to study the past in order to save the future.
I've been trying to refrain the last few weeks from making any overtly political statements. I naively hope that despite my deep-seated fears, the Obama team will rally and produce results. I am not going to be like Rush Limbaugh and root for defeat, but it is also getting harder and harder to stand by quietly and cross my fingers...
So until tomorrow...when the weekend is in view, and I am not as serious....
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Politically Correct
I probably should begin this with a frame of reference. I campaigned and voted for John McCain. Though I did not find him to be the "perfect" candidate, I did admire his personal history and his ability to see more than a one-party approach to most issues. I was also leery of the "facade" of Barrack Obama. I found him to be articulate and cunning, but severely lacking in experience and in the ability to have a true grasp on many issues. He talked around things, but not about them, and when called on for specifics, he often misspoke or erred altogether.
Fast-forward to Inauguration Day. I had decided to try and put aside all of my disappointment and skepticism and "get behind" my new President. I was encouraged by the fact that so many Americans were inspired by him. But I was immediately put off by his subtle "jabs" at the outgoing president who sat behind him, and who had treated Obama in such a gracious and respectful manner. Over the past 8 years, I certainly had my share of disappointment with many of the Bush policies, but what stayed with me was the fact that this man had managed to keep our country safe after 9/11, when even the most liberal-leaning folks were sure we would be attacked again.
As I watched President Obama's speech the other night, the first thing that hit me was the that I was going to have to watch Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden sit behind him whenever he gives a speech to the country over the next 4 years. This will probably limit the amount of time I watch ,as I cannot take their arrogance or hypocrisy. Joe Biden's life story is compelling and stirring, but he has morphed into a cartoon character, a "gaffer" who lies when he doesn't know the answer, but refuses to acknowledge it . Even the President seems embarrassed by him. Nancy Pelosi is the most divisive politician to come about in years. Mention her name in a room full of republicans and you better cover your ears because the language is going to deteriorate quickly. One of my favorite moments of the last month was when she flew on her private jet (all the time declaiming the waste of corporate big-whigs) to see the Pope, only to be chastised by him for her stand on abortion. Yes, it was Pelosi who tried to tell us that the Catholic church hadn't made it's mind up on abortion. I guess the Pope didn't see it that way.
President Obama talked to us about fiscal responsibility, but he had just signed into law a 750 billion dollar stimulus package, the largest in our country's history, which pushes our deficit into the trillions. He spoke to us about maintaining a strong national security, but he had just announced weeks ago that he would close Guantanemo Bay, where we house known terrorists, without having a plan as to where those prisoners would go. The day he announced this, it was also made public that 16 of the prisoners that had been released from Guantanemo had resumed terrorist activities, many having resulted in the deaths of others.
He spoke to us about avoiding bi-partisanship, but he signed a bill without one republican vote. He spoke to us about using every tool possible to boost the economy, but refused to consider lowering the capital gains or payroll tax. He promised the end of earmarks, but praised a bill that included over 10 billion dollars worth of them. He promised no lobbyists in his administration, but yet he has already made almost 20 exceptions to that rule. He promised high ideals in his appointees, but then looked the other way when some had tax issues.
Despite all of this, I haven't given up hope. My husband calls me a "closet liberal", but I think this means that I am at least willing to listen to the "other side" before I make up my mind. My heart can listen to an argument for nationalized health care, but my head eventually kicks in and tells me it won't work. My heart supports gay rights, but my head says that marriage needs to remain between a man and a woman. (and our new President is in agreement, regardless of how he tries to present himself.) My heart dislikes the word "torture", but my head tells me that the definition becomes fuzzy when you are dealing with people who are trying to kill thousands of Americans.
In today's Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove's opinion piece spells out more articulately than I can why Barrack Obama is so troubling at this point. The general idea is that he "characterizes those who disagree with him in a fundamentally dishonest way" because he "lacks confidence in the merits of his own ideas." This is my greatest fear, that he has campaigned and been elected on this "facade" of elegance and intelligence, but if you scratch the surface, there's not much there.
We were "enlightened" by Sean Penn at the Oscars the other night, who said that he was proud that America had elected such an "elegant" man. What? Is there anyone out there that actually votes based on "elegance"? I'm not giving up yet. It's only been a couple of months, and I always have faith in the goodness of man. There are areas where Obama has demonstrated patience and the ability to compromise.
Now, as promised, on a lighter and much more meaningful note...I thought Michelle Obama looked wonderful the other night. She continues to strike the right note with her clothes, in my opinion. Except for the gown she wore for the Inauguration, which I thought was beautiful but just not on her, she has not only looked the part, but done it with style. As Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue wrote, "she accepts the iconicity that has been thrust on her and has thought carefully about how to use it responsibly and productively." In other words, she does a great job of mixing J. Crew and Narcisco Rodriguez. She represents a very modern way of dressing. Hats off to her.
I hope this "rant" wasn't too serious....In real life, I am normally not pre-disposed to discussing religion and politics, but as my husband points out, I am much braver on paper.
So tomorrow, back to everyday life...
Fast-forward to Inauguration Day. I had decided to try and put aside all of my disappointment and skepticism and "get behind" my new President. I was encouraged by the fact that so many Americans were inspired by him. But I was immediately put off by his subtle "jabs" at the outgoing president who sat behind him, and who had treated Obama in such a gracious and respectful manner. Over the past 8 years, I certainly had my share of disappointment with many of the Bush policies, but what stayed with me was the fact that this man had managed to keep our country safe after 9/11, when even the most liberal-leaning folks were sure we would be attacked again.
As I watched President Obama's speech the other night, the first thing that hit me was the that I was going to have to watch Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden sit behind him whenever he gives a speech to the country over the next 4 years. This will probably limit the amount of time I watch ,as I cannot take their arrogance or hypocrisy. Joe Biden's life story is compelling and stirring, but he has morphed into a cartoon character, a "gaffer" who lies when he doesn't know the answer, but refuses to acknowledge it . Even the President seems embarrassed by him. Nancy Pelosi is the most divisive politician to come about in years. Mention her name in a room full of republicans and you better cover your ears because the language is going to deteriorate quickly. One of my favorite moments of the last month was when she flew on her private jet (all the time declaiming the waste of corporate big-whigs) to see the Pope, only to be chastised by him for her stand on abortion. Yes, it was Pelosi who tried to tell us that the Catholic church hadn't made it's mind up on abortion. I guess the Pope didn't see it that way.
President Obama talked to us about fiscal responsibility, but he had just signed into law a 750 billion dollar stimulus package, the largest in our country's history, which pushes our deficit into the trillions. He spoke to us about maintaining a strong national security, but he had just announced weeks ago that he would close Guantanemo Bay, where we house known terrorists, without having a plan as to where those prisoners would go. The day he announced this, it was also made public that 16 of the prisoners that had been released from Guantanemo had resumed terrorist activities, many having resulted in the deaths of others.
He spoke to us about avoiding bi-partisanship, but he signed a bill without one republican vote. He spoke to us about using every tool possible to boost the economy, but refused to consider lowering the capital gains or payroll tax. He promised the end of earmarks, but praised a bill that included over 10 billion dollars worth of them. He promised no lobbyists in his administration, but yet he has already made almost 20 exceptions to that rule. He promised high ideals in his appointees, but then looked the other way when some had tax issues.
Despite all of this, I haven't given up hope. My husband calls me a "closet liberal", but I think this means that I am at least willing to listen to the "other side" before I make up my mind. My heart can listen to an argument for nationalized health care, but my head eventually kicks in and tells me it won't work. My heart supports gay rights, but my head says that marriage needs to remain between a man and a woman. (and our new President is in agreement, regardless of how he tries to present himself.) My heart dislikes the word "torture", but my head tells me that the definition becomes fuzzy when you are dealing with people who are trying to kill thousands of Americans.
In today's Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove's opinion piece spells out more articulately than I can why Barrack Obama is so troubling at this point. The general idea is that he "characterizes those who disagree with him in a fundamentally dishonest way" because he "lacks confidence in the merits of his own ideas." This is my greatest fear, that he has campaigned and been elected on this "facade" of elegance and intelligence, but if you scratch the surface, there's not much there.
We were "enlightened" by Sean Penn at the Oscars the other night, who said that he was proud that America had elected such an "elegant" man. What? Is there anyone out there that actually votes based on "elegance"? I'm not giving up yet. It's only been a couple of months, and I always have faith in the goodness of man. There are areas where Obama has demonstrated patience and the ability to compromise.
Now, as promised, on a lighter and much more meaningful note...I thought Michelle Obama looked wonderful the other night. She continues to strike the right note with her clothes, in my opinion. Except for the gown she wore for the Inauguration, which I thought was beautiful but just not on her, she has not only looked the part, but done it with style. As Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue wrote, "she accepts the iconicity that has been thrust on her and has thought carefully about how to use it responsibly and productively." In other words, she does a great job of mixing J. Crew and Narcisco Rodriguez. She represents a very modern way of dressing. Hats off to her.
I hope this "rant" wasn't too serious....In real life, I am normally not pre-disposed to discussing religion and politics, but as my husband points out, I am much braver on paper.
So tomorrow, back to everyday life...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
