Whether it's your daughter's wedding or a political rally, not everyone there will leave you feeling entirely comfortable. But, hopefully, all will share your core values. I believe Republican's core values include fiscal responsibility and an awareness of the importance of free markets. This country took this path before really understanding fully how it was benefitting from relatively free markets. Indeed, it was not until Milton Friedman came along that we began to understand why free markets were so important.
That's why I'm a Republican. I feel that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan understand this far better than Obama and Biden. It's why I feel the Republicans will be able to re-ignite America's growth rate and force unemployment back down to 3%.
I also feel that Romney and Ryan understand the threat to America's culture from Islamic fundamentalism far better than Obama and Biden. For the Democrats, all religions are more or less the same. And, there's a sliver of truth to this. All religions have secular followers and truly orthodox followers. But, there remains a particular distinction to be made with regards to Islam that liberals just don't get. Most other religions have learned to live together. Here in the U.S., Christians and Jews and various other religions live together more or less amicably. None of our religions, as far as I know, has the ambition to place their religion above all others in this country. Only fundamentalist Muslims harbor such an ambition whether here in the States or in whatever country in Europe to which they may have immigrated.
In our Republican tent, we happened to be joined by Republicans with values which present me with a problem. First, there's the attitude of many Republicans with regard to gun laws, or the absence thereof. I say "first," because to me it's so obvious.We once had a law regarding the prohibition of assault weapons. It expired. Why don't we simply vote it back in again? Also, if we have vehicle registration, why not gun registration?
My other problem with many Republicans is that they are comfortable with encouraging the redefinition of when birth occurs and the status of fetuses. I understand why they wish to do so. They feel it's God's will. But, other's understand God's will differently. So, why not just leave it. To force a girl to give birth when she is clearly not interested in doing so seems to me to be extraordinarily cruel. And, it troubles me that people would invoke God's name in perpetrating such cruelty.
But, for me, the No. 1 problem is the state of our economy. Here we clearly need a new direction and I believe Romney and Ryan can and will deliver
Friday, August 17, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Why The '12 US Presidential Campaign Is About Nothing
Joe Scarborough of the 'Morning Joe' program on CNBC bemoans the fact that this year's presidential campaign appears to be 'about nothing.' He cites Obama making a reference to "Romneyhood" (robbing the poor to give to the rich) and Romney charging Obama with "Obamaloney" (contraction of 'Obama' and 'baloney'). Point taken. But, why? There is a reason. Joe knows it, as do the candidates themselves. So why won't Joe tell us?
Here, in 'Chuckling Over The Here And Now' I'll tell you. Our No. 1 problem is our anemic, 2% economic growth. What we need is 4% growth. The solution, however, will involve some pain for the citizenry. This was made crystal-clear by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bi-partisan commission,which, to his credit, was appointed by Obama, Unfortunately, Obama never lifted a finger in support of the commission's recommendations.
To their credit, the Republicans put a bill -- Paul Ryan's bill -- on table in the House of Representatives intended to implement the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. To their great shame, the Democrats in Harry Reid's Senate have done nothing. They drag a red herring through the discussion by claiming that, despite their majority in the Senate, they are fearful of a Republican filibuster. Maybe there would be a Republican filibuster, but at least let the public see such a filibuster, if it should occur. You'd think that that's what the Democrats would want to see happen.
What both parties fear is telling the public that the solution to America's economic problem and our 8% unemployment won't come without some economic pain and suffering. The only thing that supports taking the actions outlined in Simpson-Bowles proposals and in Paul Ryan's bill is that they will put us back on the correct economic path and will, in the not too distant future, return this country to full employment. The stakes are huge and will ultimately determine America's position in the world.
But, having seen the kind of campaign that they have launched against Paul Ryan, the Democrats don't want to see themselves subjected to the same kind of attacks by the Republicans. The result of all this is that neither party is telling the public what it needs to know; namely, that we need to take some fairly strong economic measures (whittle down entitlements, require citizens to work a little longer before collecting social security, reduce the size of government, etc. etc. etc. (ref: Simpson-Bowles).
The biggest phony in this discussion is Joe Scarborough, a prime example of a rhino Republican if ever there was one (RINO: a Republican in name only). His advice to Romney; talk about the 3 M's -- money, Mormonism, and Massachusetts. Really, Joe? What the most addle minded Republican knows is that if Romney followed your really stupid advice he would be taking the discussion away from America's number one problem; namely, our limping economy.
As to the 3M's, they are subjects on which Romney can't win. What's he going to say; that FDR and JFK and, goodness knows, how many other great American leaders were really, really wealthy? This would be nothing but a diversion from our desperately needed discussion as to how best to deal with our economic problems.
Then he wants Romney to discuss his Mormonism. Really? JFK dealt with his Catholicism in a really great way with his speech on this subject to the American people. There is absolutely no need for Romney to re-plow this field.
And, then there's Massachusetts, another losing topic. Did Romney do a great job as governor of Massachusetts. According to most citizens of Massachusetts, the answer would be, yes, yes, yes. But, his healthcare law in Massachusetts was a unique state solution to a problem of the citizens of that state. Would it be a solution for the country? At this point, most Americans are saying, "NO." So let it go, Joe. Romney's not running to be governor of some state. This is a presidential race.
And, to think, there are still viewers who really believe that Joe Scarborough is a Republican.
Here, in 'Chuckling Over The Here And Now' I'll tell you. Our No. 1 problem is our anemic, 2% economic growth. What we need is 4% growth. The solution, however, will involve some pain for the citizenry. This was made crystal-clear by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bi-partisan commission,which, to his credit, was appointed by Obama, Unfortunately, Obama never lifted a finger in support of the commission's recommendations.
To their credit, the Republicans put a bill -- Paul Ryan's bill -- on table in the House of Representatives intended to implement the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. To their great shame, the Democrats in Harry Reid's Senate have done nothing. They drag a red herring through the discussion by claiming that, despite their majority in the Senate, they are fearful of a Republican filibuster. Maybe there would be a Republican filibuster, but at least let the public see such a filibuster, if it should occur. You'd think that that's what the Democrats would want to see happen.
What both parties fear is telling the public that the solution to America's economic problem and our 8% unemployment won't come without some economic pain and suffering. The only thing that supports taking the actions outlined in Simpson-Bowles proposals and in Paul Ryan's bill is that they will put us back on the correct economic path and will, in the not too distant future, return this country to full employment. The stakes are huge and will ultimately determine America's position in the world.
But, having seen the kind of campaign that they have launched against Paul Ryan, the Democrats don't want to see themselves subjected to the same kind of attacks by the Republicans. The result of all this is that neither party is telling the public what it needs to know; namely, that we need to take some fairly strong economic measures (whittle down entitlements, require citizens to work a little longer before collecting social security, reduce the size of government, etc. etc. etc. (ref: Simpson-Bowles).
The biggest phony in this discussion is Joe Scarborough, a prime example of a rhino Republican if ever there was one (RINO: a Republican in name only). His advice to Romney; talk about the 3 M's -- money, Mormonism, and Massachusetts. Really, Joe? What the most addle minded Republican knows is that if Romney followed your really stupid advice he would be taking the discussion away from America's number one problem; namely, our limping economy.
As to the 3M's, they are subjects on which Romney can't win. What's he going to say; that FDR and JFK and, goodness knows, how many other great American leaders were really, really wealthy? This would be nothing but a diversion from our desperately needed discussion as to how best to deal with our economic problems.
Then he wants Romney to discuss his Mormonism. Really? JFK dealt with his Catholicism in a really great way with his speech on this subject to the American people. There is absolutely no need for Romney to re-plow this field.
And, then there's Massachusetts, another losing topic. Did Romney do a great job as governor of Massachusetts. According to most citizens of Massachusetts, the answer would be, yes, yes, yes. But, his healthcare law in Massachusetts was a unique state solution to a problem of the citizens of that state. Would it be a solution for the country? At this point, most Americans are saying, "NO." So let it go, Joe. Romney's not running to be governor of some state. This is a presidential race.
And, to think, there are still viewers who really believe that Joe Scarborough is a Republican.
Friday, August 3, 2012
A Jewish Goliath?
Yep. That's what the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, said in an interview on Channel 10. His exact words: (The Jewish state is today viewed) "as the Goliath and it is the Palestinians who are seen as the David." He went on to warn that Israelis and their supporters should be concerned about the erosion of popular support for the Jewish state. This information was reported by the Jerusalem Post.
This description as to how Israel is seen may be correct. Nevertheless, it is an entirely false picture. Sure, Israel could easily overrun both Gaza and the West Bank. But that hardly makes it a Goliath. This is not a man-to-man contest; it is a tag team match.
Behind the weakly Palestinians, stand all the Islamic states. Egypt with its the manpower, Saudi Arabia with its oil money, Iran and it's Hezbollah people in Lebanon with their rockets and missiles. This is no illusion. When he was still around, Saddam Hussein had no qualms about firing a missile off into Israel from Iraq. You may recall that America warned Israel against retaliating lest it interfere with its own plans for Iraq. The hatred for Israel burns equally strongly in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia --Islamic countries that have little idea as to where Israel is actually located other than that it is somewhere west of Mecca.
Who else hates Israel? Consider Cuba, Venezuela and South American countries that a generation ago welcomed Hitler's henchmen. Erosion of popular support? How does one define "popular?" The make up of the UN makes it clear that no support is to be found here for Israel among the UN's many reptilian members. As to Israel's "friends", one need only recall the time when France denied Israel desperately needed war planes; fighters that that had already been bought and paid for by the Israelis. De Gaulle it seems had decided that the Arab nations were more important to France than Israel.
So who is left? No country could have a better friend than the American people. But with Obama and his sidekicks Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta hollering about a Peace Plan that died on the Abbas door step quite some time ago, Israel finds itself without much support. Is it this the Israel the British Ambassador wishes to warn of eroding support? Support from whom; the British, the Germans, the French, the Dutch -- all countries with growing Irslamic populations.
Perhaps the country that Israel should turn to is Russia. They may not be all that likable, but when you see how they stick up for bloody Assad, you begin thinking that, in a street brawl, this is the kind of country you want covering your back. Certainly not someone like a Jimmy Carter who happened to step into a photo op with Begin and Sadat. As to Obama? I'd rather put my money on Romney.
This description as to how Israel is seen may be correct. Nevertheless, it is an entirely false picture. Sure, Israel could easily overrun both Gaza and the West Bank. But that hardly makes it a Goliath. This is not a man-to-man contest; it is a tag team match.
Behind the weakly Palestinians, stand all the Islamic states. Egypt with its the manpower, Saudi Arabia with its oil money, Iran and it's Hezbollah people in Lebanon with their rockets and missiles. This is no illusion. When he was still around, Saddam Hussein had no qualms about firing a missile off into Israel from Iraq. You may recall that America warned Israel against retaliating lest it interfere with its own plans for Iraq. The hatred for Israel burns equally strongly in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia --Islamic countries that have little idea as to where Israel is actually located other than that it is somewhere west of Mecca.
Who else hates Israel? Consider Cuba, Venezuela and South American countries that a generation ago welcomed Hitler's henchmen. Erosion of popular support? How does one define "popular?" The make up of the UN makes it clear that no support is to be found here for Israel among the UN's many reptilian members. As to Israel's "friends", one need only recall the time when France denied Israel desperately needed war planes; fighters that that had already been bought and paid for by the Israelis. De Gaulle it seems had decided that the Arab nations were more important to France than Israel.
So who is left? No country could have a better friend than the American people. But with Obama and his sidekicks Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta hollering about a Peace Plan that died on the Abbas door step quite some time ago, Israel finds itself without much support. Is it this the Israel the British Ambassador wishes to warn of eroding support? Support from whom; the British, the Germans, the French, the Dutch -- all countries with growing Irslamic populations.
Perhaps the country that Israel should turn to is Russia. They may not be all that likable, but when you see how they stick up for bloody Assad, you begin thinking that, in a street brawl, this is the kind of country you want covering your back. Certainly not someone like a Jimmy Carter who happened to step into a photo op with Begin and Sadat. As to Obama? I'd rather put my money on Romney.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The UN: Rest in Peace
Well, seriously, how do you know it’s dead?
It smells.
It smells.
Actually, there have been many indications of its demise for a long time. The massive attacks in its chambers against Israel was an early warning sign. And, the very quiet that attended massacres in the Congo, the Sudan, and elsewhere were additional very clear signals. And now we watch as Syria is torn limb from limb.
So why did the UN die? Because members long ago abandoned the principals on which the organization was founded. It’s two chambers were created so that in the Security Council, the major powers emerging immediately after WW II would keep their power intact. In the General Assembly, all nations were given representation. Regardless of how small they might be. Each nation would have a voice.
So let’s now look at the Security Council. The Nationalist Chinese were forced out by the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Considering the shift in power that occured in China, this, to some extent, made sense. But let’s now look at the behavious of China. You see them lay claim to all of the China Sea despite equally valid claims by the Vietnamese and the Phillipines. Taiwan was then designated as a land subservient to the PRC despite its having emerged as a country with a democratic form of government, with a strong industrial base and an equally strong antipathy to the totalitarian ways of the PRC. Nevertheless, it is allowed no vote in the UN. And, let us not forget China's heel that remains on the neck of the Tibetans.
In the case of Russia, we have a country that has scooped out for itself from Georgia provinces which it now declares belong to Russia.
The countries in the General Assembly number just under 200. When Israel was recognized by the UN’s General Assembly, there were only 56. And, in what may now seem ironic, Russia voted with America in support of Israel. Islamic nations, on the other hand, were always united in their opposition to Israel being recognized. Today, with the many new states that have been admitted to the UN General Assembly, the influence of the Islamic states has become far stronger. But, who are these new nations? Countries like the Sudan, Zimbabue and Mali; hardly model states.
The Syrian situation now makes clear for everyone to see how hopeless the UN has become. Russia is sticking with Assad to the end. He takes pride in showing the nations of the world that if you are an ally of Russia, Russia will stick with you to the end. Allies of America get no similar assurances. As for the UN, it means nothing. It's dead.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Move Over Prof Chomsky .. Move Over Maestro Barenboim .. Make Room for Thomas Friedman
"Did you see Friedman's column in the NY Times this morning (8/1/12)?" asked my wife.
"No," I answered, "I try to avoid him."
"I haven't read him yet either," she said. "But, Sharon did and she said his item made her livid."
Sharon gets livid easily. But, perhaps, I decided, I should take a look at this column.
Friedman was true to form. He starts off saying he didn't like what Romney had to say in the course of his overseas trip. Surprise. Surprise. He was critical of Romney's remarks in London. He nearly had a stroke over Romney's remarks in Jerusalem. And, he was indignant that Romney's spokesperson told the thugs of the liberal press where they could go as they showed unbelievable disrespected at the Polish war memorial at Pilsudski Squares where Romney had just finished speaking. But we get it. Friedman is a person of the left. Oops. It was Maureen Dowd that said those things, not Friedman. But what's the difference? She's on the right side of the Op-Ed and he was on the left side.
Friedman's beef centers on Israel. (Yes, I have it right now.) But, it's not only Romney that gives him agita. Friedman has an extreme allergy to "the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu." (I'm not sure exactly what he intended to say with that phrase. I just copied it from his column.) Friedman also has problems with the following: Republican contributor, Sheldon Adelson, AIPAC, Israeli settlements (which presumably includes parts of Jerusalem).
But, then he goes on to lose his senses entirely. He writes,"they (the right wing) don't care what absorbing all of its (West Bank) Palestinians will mean for Israel's future as a Jewish democracy." What is this guy smoking?
He goes on to fault Romney for not going to Ramallah and for suggesting that Palestinians don't have a culture that promotes entrepreneurial activity. It's here that I was really amazed at the lack of understanding of this middle eastern "expert," Thomas Friedman. Surely, he must know that neither Romney or anyone else questions the abilities and enterprise of individual Palestinians. The culture that Romney was referring to was their societal and political culture. It's well known that the Palestinian society is less open than Israeli society (more hostile to gays and to women's rights). All societies have varying degrees of corruption. It's something every society must constantly fight against. It's just that the Palestinians don't put up much of a fight. Had Fatah been less corrupt, it is unlikely that Hamas would have been able to supplant them in Gaza. With the UN supporting Palestinians for generation after generation is it any surprise that they have become such a dependent people?
He goes over the bend once more lauding Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. He must be on his second joint.
And, then, there's his use of the term "occupation". It's certainly not what Israel wants. Nor, did they want to build fences. But when people come into your home to cut your throat as well as that of your children ... when they come to blow up your buses and explode themselves in bars and restaurants (pretty much what they continue to do in Iraq), that's what you do. Sleep comfortably Mr. Friedman.
.
"No," I answered, "I try to avoid him."
"I haven't read him yet either," she said. "But, Sharon did and she said his item made her livid."
Sharon gets livid easily. But, perhaps, I decided, I should take a look at this column.
Friedman was true to form. He starts off saying he didn't like what Romney had to say in the course of his overseas trip. Surprise. Surprise. He was critical of Romney's remarks in London. He nearly had a stroke over Romney's remarks in Jerusalem. And, he was indignant that Romney's spokesperson told the thugs of the liberal press where they could go as they showed unbelievable disrespected at the Polish war memorial at Pilsudski Squares where Romney had just finished speaking. But we get it. Friedman is a person of the left. Oops. It was Maureen Dowd that said those things, not Friedman. But what's the difference? She's on the right side of the Op-Ed and he was on the left side.
Friedman's beef centers on Israel. (Yes, I have it right now.) But, it's not only Romney that gives him agita. Friedman has an extreme allergy to "the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu." (I'm not sure exactly what he intended to say with that phrase. I just copied it from his column.) Friedman also has problems with the following: Republican contributor, Sheldon Adelson, AIPAC, Israeli settlements (which presumably includes parts of Jerusalem).
But, then he goes on to lose his senses entirely. He writes,"they (the right wing) don't care what absorbing all of its (West Bank) Palestinians will mean for Israel's future as a Jewish democracy." What is this guy smoking?
He goes on to fault Romney for not going to Ramallah and for suggesting that Palestinians don't have a culture that promotes entrepreneurial activity. It's here that I was really amazed at the lack of understanding of this middle eastern "expert," Thomas Friedman. Surely, he must know that neither Romney or anyone else questions the abilities and enterprise of individual Palestinians. The culture that Romney was referring to was their societal and political culture. It's well known that the Palestinian society is less open than Israeli society (more hostile to gays and to women's rights). All societies have varying degrees of corruption. It's something every society must constantly fight against. It's just that the Palestinians don't put up much of a fight. Had Fatah been less corrupt, it is unlikely that Hamas would have been able to supplant them in Gaza. With the UN supporting Palestinians for generation after generation is it any surprise that they have become such a dependent people?
He goes over the bend once more lauding Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. He must be on his second joint.
And, then, there's his use of the term "occupation". It's certainly not what Israel wants. Nor, did they want to build fences. But when people come into your home to cut your throat as well as that of your children ... when they come to blow up your buses and explode themselves in bars and restaurants (pretty much what they continue to do in Iraq), that's what you do. Sleep comfortably Mr. Friedman.
.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)