This has been a tough week. I know you are as tired as I am with all the negative issues in the news. So I won't bore you anymore this week what I think of the world and national problems.
Why? You may ask. Well, I will tell you why.
The New York Mets won seven of the eleven games on their road trip that ended in Colorado yesterday. The reason in Colorado for only one game? They had to make up the "Snowball Game" from April, when two of the four games were snowed out. Ironically, the temperature today at game time was in the 90s!
My Mets have been struggling all year, to the point where they were actually happy to get out of Citifield after their disastrous homestand, when they were swept two weekends in a row. I know we have had some bright spots: Wright, Harvey, Murphy, Byrd and the new kid, Wheeler. But this not enough to stay the course, to feel excited because we had a chance.
No, instead, I think that after the All Star Game, which is when our season has been ending these last couple of years, it would be good to bring some more of the kids up and see what they can do. After all, Mets first baseman, Ike Davis, has been tearing up the AAA since he was sent down almost two weeks ago, so let the kids play here, right?
Seriously. David Wright will go to the All Star Game in July as the starting third baseman. If he doesn't, then the fix was in against New York. Matt Harvey will be there, too, a possible 10-1 record, up there with the leaders in ERA and strikeouts. Maybe even Daniel Murphy, if not as the starting second baseman, certainly as an alternate. Because the Game is being played in Citifield, Mets Manager Terry Collins has been invited as a coach. And balloting ends on Sunday, so if you haven't gotten around to it, you have this weekend to vote up to 25 times!
When play resumes after the break, the Mets, if they continue to play at the pace they have played all year, will be probably 15 games under .500, which in this new age of a second place playoff game, will not get them there unless they play 25 or 30 games over the rest of the way. And let's face it Met fans, Santana won't be back, either. Enjoy the memories he gave you.
I know it's hard to read or hear this news, but as Met fans, we know that we are real fans. We compete in a town where the other guys have been in the playoffs almost every year since 1995 and have won five World Series in that time, including one against our heroes. The other guys have won 27 Series against our two, but have only won ONE since they beat us in 2000.
A Met Fan is a Loyal Fan, whereas any fair-weather fan only follows a winner. He doesn't know the pain a real fan feels. Met fans, on the other hand, have truly known the thrill of victory and the absolute agony of defeat.
So, fans, keep going to the ball park to cheer on our boys of summer. Root the kids on to inspire them for all the years to come and maybe, just maybe, a surprise or two might make it all worth it, even this year. You never know, because if they win enough games the rest of the way, they could make the one game playoff game.
And then it's a whole new season. You know, NOTHING beats October Baseball.
Let's Go Mets!
Friday, June 28, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
American Independence
Next Thursday is Independence Day, the holiday that we celebrate our independence from an oppressive government. 237 years ago, very backward men looked at their plight as citizens of the British Crown and understood that their King, George III, and Parliament were treating them as serfs, rather than as British free men.
The colonists recognized that something needed to be done to improve their lot. After all, colonists and regular British soldiers fought side by side as comrades in the French and Indian War to help the Crown maintain and expand its presence in North America. And in 1775, the Crown was penalizing the colonists with regressive taxes and penalties for their labors and products.
As time wore on, more colonists began to believe that something dramatic was necessary to send a message to the king. Those who spoke of revolution were in the minority. But, the members of the Continental Congress, in order to quell an open revolt at their chambers, enlisted John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, along with several other members, to draft and ultimately present for review a "list of grievances" to be sent to Parliament and the king for consideration and action.
Thomas Jefferson was charged with the responsibility to write the draft and was given until the first of July, 1776 to complete this task. Jefferson researched many documents, including the works of John Locke, whose works are revealed throughout the Declaration of Independence. Locke spoke of three important values to humankind, life liberty and property, which Jefferson plagiarized as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Locke also spoke of governing with the consent of the governed, classical republicanism and liberal theory which Jefferson spread all through the Declaration. He submitted it for review on July 2 and after some serious and emotional debate, several minor changes were made. On July 4, the document was published to the world.
There was no going back.
Fast forward two centuries to January 20, 1981. President Ronald Reagan, in his Inaugural Address, said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." Reagan, like Kennedy, had great speechwriters, and like Kennedy, Reagan had an unflappable delivery. Perhaps, it was because as an actor, he had a knack for timing. He had a gift as a Great Communicator, and believed what he said.
I bring these two stories to make this point:
The intent of our founders was not to replace one unbearable, overwhelming, repressive government with one equal or worse than what they revolted against. The goal, ultimately, was to bestow a government that was "of the people, for the people, and by the people." Reagan understood this as much as Lincoln, or Kennedy, did.
It doesn't matter whether it's President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, or some past/future President that heads the government. The government itself has become too big, too oppressive. This was not the intention of the founders to have this uncontrollable monster mutate from the simple plan laid out by our Forefathers.
So, as we approach this Fourth of July, ask yourself, "Is this government gone wild? Is this what soldiers died for?" A reasonable person will say no.
Give this some thought this holiday. Cherish your liberty and freedom given to you by others' sacrifices, not by the government.
The colonists recognized that something needed to be done to improve their lot. After all, colonists and regular British soldiers fought side by side as comrades in the French and Indian War to help the Crown maintain and expand its presence in North America. And in 1775, the Crown was penalizing the colonists with regressive taxes and penalties for their labors and products.
As time wore on, more colonists began to believe that something dramatic was necessary to send a message to the king. Those who spoke of revolution were in the minority. But, the members of the Continental Congress, in order to quell an open revolt at their chambers, enlisted John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, along with several other members, to draft and ultimately present for review a "list of grievances" to be sent to Parliament and the king for consideration and action.
Thomas Jefferson was charged with the responsibility to write the draft and was given until the first of July, 1776 to complete this task. Jefferson researched many documents, including the works of John Locke, whose works are revealed throughout the Declaration of Independence. Locke spoke of three important values to humankind, life liberty and property, which Jefferson plagiarized as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Locke also spoke of governing with the consent of the governed, classical republicanism and liberal theory which Jefferson spread all through the Declaration. He submitted it for review on July 2 and after some serious and emotional debate, several minor changes were made. On July 4, the document was published to the world.
There was no going back.
Fast forward two centuries to January 20, 1981. President Ronald Reagan, in his Inaugural Address, said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." Reagan, like Kennedy, had great speechwriters, and like Kennedy, Reagan had an unflappable delivery. Perhaps, it was because as an actor, he had a knack for timing. He had a gift as a Great Communicator, and believed what he said.
I bring these two stories to make this point:
The intent of our founders was not to replace one unbearable, overwhelming, repressive government with one equal or worse than what they revolted against. The goal, ultimately, was to bestow a government that was "of the people, for the people, and by the people." Reagan understood this as much as Lincoln, or Kennedy, did.
It doesn't matter whether it's President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, or some past/future President that heads the government. The government itself has become too big, too oppressive. This was not the intention of the founders to have this uncontrollable monster mutate from the simple plan laid out by our Forefathers.
So, as we approach this Fourth of July, ask yourself, "Is this government gone wild? Is this what soldiers died for?" A reasonable person will say no.
Give this some thought this holiday. Cherish your liberty and freedom given to you by others' sacrifices, not by the government.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Chess, Anyone?
Did you ever play chess? It's a good game, a game of strategy and conquest. The premise of the game is to capture the most valuable piece on the board, the King. That is called checkmate, because you were able to set up your other pieces in order to finally come in for the kill.
But to me, I don't think that checkmate is the ultimate "insult" in a win. You could easily accomplish it while your opponent is trying to do the same to you. And, sometimes, a little luck, as well as strategy, could be on your side.
Instead, I feel the biggest "insult" is being placed in a position to withdraw. Withdrawal means that you see your chance to win as hopeless. You basically didn't see it coming and now the train is in your face. No matter what moves you make, the hole only gets deeper. So, you must withdraw.
Geopolitics is a lot like chess. You have important pieces, your allies, your military, your economy. And your citizenry are your pawns. For the United States, since WWII, our allies have been Germany, France, Italy, and England. While from time to time, the first three have been fair-weathered allies, England has been loyal to the core.
Until now.
Russia, on the other hand, has mixed and matched its allies as circumstances warranted. There has been no real loyalty by its allies, whether they were Warsaw Pact countries, African nations, Far East or Latin American supporters. Presently, it seems that Syria and Iran fit Russia's needs.
Economies and militaries are important because they help those in charge achieve their end goals. Without strong economies, whether they are capitalist, socialist or some other form of economy, you must manage it well or you lose a major resource in your game plan.
The same with your military. If you constantly put it in harms way, whether at home or abroad, it eventually becomes weakened. And if you abuse or disrespect it, well, you will have lost it.
The pawns, uh, the people depend on its leaders to keep them safe, prosperous and free from losing the things they treasure most: life, family, property. Ideals like freedom and liberty are defined for us by the way the government treats us. For some, as long as the government provides health care, jobs and enough money to be able to purchase goods and services, all is well. For Americans, not so much.
So until now, our leaders played very good chess games with the Russians and had great allies in British Prime Ministers. Kennedy had McMillan, Nixon had Wilson, Reagan and Bush 41 had Thatcher, and Clinton and Bush 43 had Blair. Each president and prime minister offered good advice, strong support and worked as co-leaders on pressing world events, standing up to Soviet and Russian leaders.
President Obama has lost his allies and his support team. How? Well, he is not a good chess player. Yes, he makes good speeches, and at one time, was able to inspire Americans, Europeans and others with his uplifting sentiment and lofty promises. But the world has learned that he doesn't back up his words with action, as his predecessors did. Instead, they have come to believe that while he can talk the talk, he doesn't know how to walk the walk.
Vladimir Putin was very shrewd. He decided that he and Dmitri Medvedev would switch places for a few years, while, ever the chess player, Vlad was able to observe Barry from close range and yet, not be seen. Now, he is once again President of Russia, only this time, he is dealing from a position of perceived strength.
And President Obama is in well over his head. The Chessmaster has all his pieces in play on the geopolitical chessboard, while our President is fumbling with scandals, weapons to perceived rebels in Syria and no support from NATO countries or especially England.
And then our President goes to Northern Ireland, where until only recently, religious intolerance abounded between Catholics and Protestants, and proceeded to criticize both groups. While there, he had an opportunity to speak directly to Mr Putin, and it looked as though neither wanted to be in the same room. The winner? Vlad by a decision.
Now, Edward Snowden is in Russia and the US has asked that he be extradited back to our country. Round two? Right. Vlad again.
President Obama is in a position that no President of the USA, in dealing with the Russians, or the Soviets before them, had ever been in: second place. Vladimir Putin, the consummate chess player, knows this and will continue to move his pieces on the board until finally, Barack Obama has no choice but to withdraw.
He is losing badly, and therefore, so is the United States. Soon, we may never recover from this geopolitical chess match. When Obama loses, the American Century will be done.
History will look at our time as we do the Roman Empire, the Renaissance, the British Empire. Fondly and with a sense of nostalgia. And the Russian Century will begin.
But to me, I don't think that checkmate is the ultimate "insult" in a win. You could easily accomplish it while your opponent is trying to do the same to you. And, sometimes, a little luck, as well as strategy, could be on your side.
Instead, I feel the biggest "insult" is being placed in a position to withdraw. Withdrawal means that you see your chance to win as hopeless. You basically didn't see it coming and now the train is in your face. No matter what moves you make, the hole only gets deeper. So, you must withdraw.
Geopolitics is a lot like chess. You have important pieces, your allies, your military, your economy. And your citizenry are your pawns. For the United States, since WWII, our allies have been Germany, France, Italy, and England. While from time to time, the first three have been fair-weathered allies, England has been loyal to the core.
Until now.
Russia, on the other hand, has mixed and matched its allies as circumstances warranted. There has been no real loyalty by its allies, whether they were Warsaw Pact countries, African nations, Far East or Latin American supporters. Presently, it seems that Syria and Iran fit Russia's needs.
Economies and militaries are important because they help those in charge achieve their end goals. Without strong economies, whether they are capitalist, socialist or some other form of economy, you must manage it well or you lose a major resource in your game plan.
The same with your military. If you constantly put it in harms way, whether at home or abroad, it eventually becomes weakened. And if you abuse or disrespect it, well, you will have lost it.
The pawns, uh, the people depend on its leaders to keep them safe, prosperous and free from losing the things they treasure most: life, family, property. Ideals like freedom and liberty are defined for us by the way the government treats us. For some, as long as the government provides health care, jobs and enough money to be able to purchase goods and services, all is well. For Americans, not so much.
So until now, our leaders played very good chess games with the Russians and had great allies in British Prime Ministers. Kennedy had McMillan, Nixon had Wilson, Reagan and Bush 41 had Thatcher, and Clinton and Bush 43 had Blair. Each president and prime minister offered good advice, strong support and worked as co-leaders on pressing world events, standing up to Soviet and Russian leaders.
President Obama has lost his allies and his support team. How? Well, he is not a good chess player. Yes, he makes good speeches, and at one time, was able to inspire Americans, Europeans and others with his uplifting sentiment and lofty promises. But the world has learned that he doesn't back up his words with action, as his predecessors did. Instead, they have come to believe that while he can talk the talk, he doesn't know how to walk the walk.
Vladimir Putin was very shrewd. He decided that he and Dmitri Medvedev would switch places for a few years, while, ever the chess player, Vlad was able to observe Barry from close range and yet, not be seen. Now, he is once again President of Russia, only this time, he is dealing from a position of perceived strength.
And President Obama is in well over his head. The Chessmaster has all his pieces in play on the geopolitical chessboard, while our President is fumbling with scandals, weapons to perceived rebels in Syria and no support from NATO countries or especially England.
And then our President goes to Northern Ireland, where until only recently, religious intolerance abounded between Catholics and Protestants, and proceeded to criticize both groups. While there, he had an opportunity to speak directly to Mr Putin, and it looked as though neither wanted to be in the same room. The winner? Vlad by a decision.
Now, Edward Snowden is in Russia and the US has asked that he be extradited back to our country. Round two? Right. Vlad again.
President Obama is in a position that no President of the USA, in dealing with the Russians, or the Soviets before them, had ever been in: second place. Vladimir Putin, the consummate chess player, knows this and will continue to move his pieces on the board until finally, Barack Obama has no choice but to withdraw.
He is losing badly, and therefore, so is the United States. Soon, we may never recover from this geopolitical chess match. When Obama loses, the American Century will be done.
History will look at our time as we do the Roman Empire, the Renaissance, the British Empire. Fondly and with a sense of nostalgia. And the Russian Century will begin.
Berliner Plus 50
Tomorrow, June 26, is the 50th anniversary of JFKs "Ich bin ein un Berliner" speech. As a 12 year old kid, I thought he was talking over his head. But as I grew up, I had the opportunity to study (I was a Political Science and History major), read, listen to and analyze the deeper meaning of this speech on the heals of The Peace Speech, which was his commencement address at American University on June 10, 1963.
The characteristics of the two speeches couldn't be more different and stark. In The Peace Speech, he offers an olive branch to the Soviets in order to come to the table and discuss nuclear weapons and other issues of note. In the "Berliner" speech, which was given at the Berlin Wall sixteen days later, he offers a challenge and a promise to both Germanys, the Soviet Union and the world, that the US will be in Europe for the duration, until and beyond when Germany, and Berlin, are one again.
He talks about the Roman Empire, where Civis Romanus sum, or I am a Roman citizen, was the proudest statement a Roman from two millennia ago could say, and equates its importance to modern Berlin, Ich bin ein un Berliner, or I am a Berliner, and the importance of that statement in 1963. The meaning wasn't lost in the translation to the Germans, or to the Soviets, although he actually said "I am a donut".
It doesn't matter. It's meaning was clear. Just like President Reagan challenged the Soviets, and Mikhail Gorbachev at the same spot in front of The Wall, with "Mr Gorbachev. Tear down this wall!" in June, 1987, Kennedy knew exactly what he meant and what he was doing in 1963.
This speech has withstood the test of time. 50 years, well, can be looked at through the prism of history. We will find that this speech in all probability, was really the beginning of the end for the old USSR, because shortly after, President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger used the vacillation in the old Soviet regime to open China and build a Detente with both countries which has lasted to the present day.
Kennedy died later that year and never saw the long-term result from that speech. He would have been proud to say that he played a part in the changing of the world. Perhaps, the Cold War would have ended sooner had he lived to see a second term, for he surely would have been reelected. His key advisors have shown us his second-term agenda to see what was plotted and he would have finished all the things he planned.
It's too bad, because history doesn't allow for woulda-, shoulda- and coulda-beens. We can't know an alternative history because to the practical mind, there is none. But we can know this: Kennedy's "Berliner" speech showed the world that his Inauguration Address was not platitudes and empty words on a piece of paper. When Kennedy spoke, it meant something. Only Reagan, since that time, has said something as meaningful.
And it began 50 Years ago tomorrow..
The characteristics of the two speeches couldn't be more different and stark. In The Peace Speech, he offers an olive branch to the Soviets in order to come to the table and discuss nuclear weapons and other issues of note. In the "Berliner" speech, which was given at the Berlin Wall sixteen days later, he offers a challenge and a promise to both Germanys, the Soviet Union and the world, that the US will be in Europe for the duration, until and beyond when Germany, and Berlin, are one again.
He talks about the Roman Empire, where Civis Romanus sum, or I am a Roman citizen, was the proudest statement a Roman from two millennia ago could say, and equates its importance to modern Berlin, Ich bin ein un Berliner, or I am a Berliner, and the importance of that statement in 1963. The meaning wasn't lost in the translation to the Germans, or to the Soviets, although he actually said "I am a donut".
It doesn't matter. It's meaning was clear. Just like President Reagan challenged the Soviets, and Mikhail Gorbachev at the same spot in front of The Wall, with "Mr Gorbachev. Tear down this wall!" in June, 1987, Kennedy knew exactly what he meant and what he was doing in 1963.
This speech has withstood the test of time. 50 years, well, can be looked at through the prism of history. We will find that this speech in all probability, was really the beginning of the end for the old USSR, because shortly after, President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger used the vacillation in the old Soviet regime to open China and build a Detente with both countries which has lasted to the present day.
Kennedy died later that year and never saw the long-term result from that speech. He would have been proud to say that he played a part in the changing of the world. Perhaps, the Cold War would have ended sooner had he lived to see a second term, for he surely would have been reelected. His key advisors have shown us his second-term agenda to see what was plotted and he would have finished all the things he planned.
It's too bad, because history doesn't allow for woulda-, shoulda- and coulda-beens. We can't know an alternative history because to the practical mind, there is none. But we can know this: Kennedy's "Berliner" speech showed the world that his Inauguration Address was not platitudes and empty words on a piece of paper. When Kennedy spoke, it meant something. Only Reagan, since that time, has said something as meaningful.
And it began 50 Years ago tomorrow..
Monday, June 24, 2013
The Israeli-al-Qaeda War
The Obama Administration announced last week that the US was going to now send arms and munitions to the Syrian Rebels, which include al-Qaeda, and other identified terrorist groups. Now, I agree that it is a tragedy that almost 100 THOUSAND Syrians have been killed during this one-time civil war. But with the addition of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, al-Nurah, etc, along with background troops and arms assistance from Iran and Russia, it no longer a war between Syrians.
Instead, with our involvement into a fourth Muslim war since 2001 (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were the others), we have once again stirred anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world. It doesn't matter that Russia is also supplying weapons to the Syrian government; the US, the hated Crusader, is now involved. And of course, anti-American and anti-Israeli hostilities will be voiced in the UN, as it usually is, when we involve ourselves militarily anywhere in the world.
And, don't forget that Iraq, the country we spent billions in treasure and thousands in lives to secure freedom from a barbaric, neo-nazi dictator, is now allowing Iran to flyover unfettered to deliver weapons to its client-state, Syria. So much for any Status of Forces Agreement that was never entered into at the end of the Iraq War, which would have prevented this activity.
So now, we have shored up the Jordanian government with additional support troops, as Jordan is one of our Muslim "allies" in the region. And by giving weapons to the "rebels" in Syria, what is the next country in jeopardy? That's right folks. Israel is next on the radar. And we gave weapons to al-Qaeda to accomplish this.
Now, our other Muslim ally in the region is Turkey, which, due to its plurality of Christians in-country, has, since 1918, been ruled by a secular government. But understand this. Turkey is in turmoil, with Muslims attempting to convert the country to an Islamist state. And essentially, that would be the end of our relationship, as we know it, with Turkey.
So, soon we will have the makings of a real-live Armageddon, fought in the fields of Megiddo, the ancient battleground prophesied in the Bible's Book of Revelation or Apocalypse. I am certainly not discussing any religious aspect here. It is the idea, instead, that this region has been a tinderbox for millennia, much like the Balkans or the Crimea. And now it is ready to explode.
Israel, who is our only REAL ally in the region, is now gearing up its protection on four fronts: with Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood) the West Bank (again, Hamas) and now, Syria, with all the aforementioned groups involved. And now that Russia is putting ships into the Mediterranean, could that be Israel's fifth front?
No American President, all the way back to President Truman, has left Israel in such a predicament. While President Obama says he supports Israel, his actions and that of his administration, tell otherwise. I debated this issue constantly with the late Ed Koch, who felt I was overblowing Obama's disdain for Israel. I am glad he is not here to see he was wrong.
Trust me on this point. Israel is in jeopardy here. Soon, al-Qaeda and its minions will overtake Syria, with our help, and turn westward to the Golan Heights. This is a sore point to Arabs and Muslims since 1967, and retribution will be accomplished by the "new" Syria. And once the Heights are retaken, the vantage point into Israel will be secure.
Al-Qaeda will have a treasure trove of tons of chemical and biological weapons the American military never found in Iraq. And be assured. Iran will make peace with the new Syrian government because Iran is opportunistic. Al-Qaedan Syria will agree because, in spite of our intelligence that says otherwise, Iran has nuclear capability. This will work well for Syria in the coming war with Israel.
And what will the United States do? Probably nothing, if it starts with President Obama in office. He will lead once again from behind. Perhaps, it won't matter anyway because the tinderbox will have been ignited.
I saw the movie, The Sum of All Fears, this weekend, which has many great subplots. One of the Neo-Nazi characters said, "Hitler was not crazy, Hitler was stupid. You don't fight America and Russia. You get America and Russia to fight each other. Then you take over the world from the ashes of that battle." Is that the Islamist philosophy?
The time to resolve this nightmare is short. It's not if, but rather, when, the Israeli-Al-Qaeda War breaks out.
We are doomed when it does.
Instead, with our involvement into a fourth Muslim war since 2001 (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were the others), we have once again stirred anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world. It doesn't matter that Russia is also supplying weapons to the Syrian government; the US, the hated Crusader, is now involved. And of course, anti-American and anti-Israeli hostilities will be voiced in the UN, as it usually is, when we involve ourselves militarily anywhere in the world.
And, don't forget that Iraq, the country we spent billions in treasure and thousands in lives to secure freedom from a barbaric, neo-nazi dictator, is now allowing Iran to flyover unfettered to deliver weapons to its client-state, Syria. So much for any Status of Forces Agreement that was never entered into at the end of the Iraq War, which would have prevented this activity.
So now, we have shored up the Jordanian government with additional support troops, as Jordan is one of our Muslim "allies" in the region. And by giving weapons to the "rebels" in Syria, what is the next country in jeopardy? That's right folks. Israel is next on the radar. And we gave weapons to al-Qaeda to accomplish this.
Now, our other Muslim ally in the region is Turkey, which, due to its plurality of Christians in-country, has, since 1918, been ruled by a secular government. But understand this. Turkey is in turmoil, with Muslims attempting to convert the country to an Islamist state. And essentially, that would be the end of our relationship, as we know it, with Turkey.
So, soon we will have the makings of a real-live Armageddon, fought in the fields of Megiddo, the ancient battleground prophesied in the Bible's Book of Revelation or Apocalypse. I am certainly not discussing any religious aspect here. It is the idea, instead, that this region has been a tinderbox for millennia, much like the Balkans or the Crimea. And now it is ready to explode.
Israel, who is our only REAL ally in the region, is now gearing up its protection on four fronts: with Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood) the West Bank (again, Hamas) and now, Syria, with all the aforementioned groups involved. And now that Russia is putting ships into the Mediterranean, could that be Israel's fifth front?
No American President, all the way back to President Truman, has left Israel in such a predicament. While President Obama says he supports Israel, his actions and that of his administration, tell otherwise. I debated this issue constantly with the late Ed Koch, who felt I was overblowing Obama's disdain for Israel. I am glad he is not here to see he was wrong.
Trust me on this point. Israel is in jeopardy here. Soon, al-Qaeda and its minions will overtake Syria, with our help, and turn westward to the Golan Heights. This is a sore point to Arabs and Muslims since 1967, and retribution will be accomplished by the "new" Syria. And once the Heights are retaken, the vantage point into Israel will be secure.
Al-Qaeda will have a treasure trove of tons of chemical and biological weapons the American military never found in Iraq. And be assured. Iran will make peace with the new Syrian government because Iran is opportunistic. Al-Qaedan Syria will agree because, in spite of our intelligence that says otherwise, Iran has nuclear capability. This will work well for Syria in the coming war with Israel.
And what will the United States do? Probably nothing, if it starts with President Obama in office. He will lead once again from behind. Perhaps, it won't matter anyway because the tinderbox will have been ignited.
I saw the movie, The Sum of All Fears, this weekend, which has many great subplots. One of the Neo-Nazi characters said, "Hitler was not crazy, Hitler was stupid. You don't fight America and Russia. You get America and Russia to fight each other. Then you take over the world from the ashes of that battle." Is that the Islamist philosophy?
The time to resolve this nightmare is short. It's not if, but rather, when, the Israeli-Al-Qaeda War breaks out.
We are doomed when it does.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Remember When?
As the oldest of six, I generally initiated a game called "Remember When?", which went something like, "Remember when I had to sign Tommy out of high school when he was suspended, and signed him back in two days later?" Or, "Remember when Jim got caught by Dad with pot in the oven?" Got it? Good!
So, let's play.
Remember when "the only thing to fear was fear itself" was a boost of morale? (1933)
Remember when "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" was a challenge? (1961)
Remember when we actually balanced a budget? (1962)
Remember when we supported the troops for real? (1953)
Remember when we tried to "Whip Inflation Now"? (1975)
Remember when "The buck stops here" was a statement of responsibility? (1946)
Remember when "Civis Romanus sum" and "Eich bin ein un Berliner" were declared? (1963)
No? Maybe more recent then.
Remember when we heard doctors say "We are all Republicans" even when they weren't? (1981)
Remember when this was declared: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall"? (1987)
Remember when we looked at "the light on a hill"? (1988)
Remember when we heard "It's just sad, Larry" almost every night? (1992)
Remember when we tied that yellow ribbon on the tree in our yards? (1991)
Too far back, still? Ok. Let's try something a lot more recent, then.
Remember when "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was sworn to and then retracted? (1998)
Remember when we read the sign on the aircraft carrier that said "Mission Accomplished" when it wasn't? (2003)
Remember when we had to go to war in Iraq to get the WMDs and none were ever found? (2002)
Remember when we almost didn't have an election? (2000)
Remember when we constantly heard it was "Bush's fault" even when it may not have been? (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. 2013)
Remember when we "have to pass it to know what's in it", and then we would like it? (2010)
Remember when we learned it was a video that killed an American ambassador? (2012)
Remember when we learned that we were going to unilaterally cut our nuclear stockpile by 1/3 to make the world safe? (2013)
Yeah, well, I don't like the latest memories either. Let's instead remember a better time for America, taking the good from now, mixing it with the better past and work to make the best future. Then, maybe someday, we can say, "Remember when we took the negative aspects of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, realized the error of our ways and tossed them out for something a whole lot better?"
I long for that day. And then, I won't have to "Remember When".
So, let's play.
Remember when "the only thing to fear was fear itself" was a boost of morale? (1933)
Remember when "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" was a challenge? (1961)
Remember when we actually balanced a budget? (1962)
Remember when we supported the troops for real? (1953)
Remember when we tried to "Whip Inflation Now"? (1975)
Remember when "The buck stops here" was a statement of responsibility? (1946)
Remember when "Civis Romanus sum" and "Eich bin ein un Berliner" were declared? (1963)
No? Maybe more recent then.
Remember when we heard doctors say "We are all Republicans" even when they weren't? (1981)
Remember when this was declared: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall"? (1987)
Remember when we looked at "the light on a hill"? (1988)
Remember when we heard "It's just sad, Larry" almost every night? (1992)
Remember when we tied that yellow ribbon on the tree in our yards? (1991)
Too far back, still? Ok. Let's try something a lot more recent, then.
Remember when "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was sworn to and then retracted? (1998)
Remember when we read the sign on the aircraft carrier that said "Mission Accomplished" when it wasn't? (2003)
Remember when we had to go to war in Iraq to get the WMDs and none were ever found? (2002)
Remember when we almost didn't have an election? (2000)
Remember when we constantly heard it was "Bush's fault" even when it may not have been? (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. 2013)
Remember when we "have to pass it to know what's in it", and then we would like it? (2010)
Remember when we learned it was a video that killed an American ambassador? (2012)
Remember when we learned that we were going to unilaterally cut our nuclear stockpile by 1/3 to make the world safe? (2013)
Yeah, well, I don't like the latest memories either. Let's instead remember a better time for America, taking the good from now, mixing it with the better past and work to make the best future. Then, maybe someday, we can say, "Remember when we took the negative aspects of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, realized the error of our ways and tossed them out for something a whole lot better?"
I long for that day. And then, I won't have to "Remember When".
Thursday, June 20, 2013
One Toke Over the Line
Time to discuss something more on the light side, and I mean light.
Washington State recently offered up regulations concerning recreational marijuana. To dumb it down a bit, regulations for possession and usage of pot would be comparable to alcohol. Taxes would be assessed as it is on liquor, too. There are ongoing discussions on how to treat Driving Under the Influence and how to measure that.
I am ambivalent about recreational use because at this time, it is hard to judge, with only two states, Washington and Colorado, to test against. But I am in favor of decriminalization and instead, to treat possession of less than one ounce in public with a fine. Possession of a like amount in the confines of your own home would be ignored.
However, it is time to legalize medicinal marijuana across all 50 states. We can look to many states for guidance to establish consistent federal rules. The federal government wastes so much time and effort chasing down state-approved dispensaries and growers, when these efforts and financial resources could be used to secure our borders, pay down the debt, or other necessary action.
There is so much evidence that proves that use of medicinal marijuana has real benefits to those who need the drug and use it responsibly. Cancer/chemo patients, severe arthritics, paraplegics, and other disabled people have reported a dramatic improvement in their quality of life after using marijuana.
State and local police forces would be relieved of wasting limited manpower chasing down sick people and those who assist in their well-being. Communities would not be expensed higher taxes to secure "prisoners" for using pot to help themselves feel better. And doctors and other health professionals would be required to complete documentation for those they identify as having a need for this important health assistance, much like they do to have disabled permits issued.
So, what is the problem? Do pharmaceutical companies have that powerful a lobby in the Congress that discussion is not even brought up, or if it is, immediately is shot down by the leadership of both parties who depend on political contributions from Pfizer, Merck, J&J, Bayer and other drug companies, who may lose out on their control of our health needs? Maybe. Many people I have talked to feel this is true.
We need to get this rolling (no pun) now. President Obama and Members of Congress need to know how we feel about this issue. It is time for us to make a change in the quality of life of so many, as our Declaration and Constitution promise and guarantee.
And maybe, finally, the real purpose and benefit of marijuana will be realized by those desperately needing its healing properties.
Washington State recently offered up regulations concerning recreational marijuana. To dumb it down a bit, regulations for possession and usage of pot would be comparable to alcohol. Taxes would be assessed as it is on liquor, too. There are ongoing discussions on how to treat Driving Under the Influence and how to measure that.
I am ambivalent about recreational use because at this time, it is hard to judge, with only two states, Washington and Colorado, to test against. But I am in favor of decriminalization and instead, to treat possession of less than one ounce in public with a fine. Possession of a like amount in the confines of your own home would be ignored.
However, it is time to legalize medicinal marijuana across all 50 states. We can look to many states for guidance to establish consistent federal rules. The federal government wastes so much time and effort chasing down state-approved dispensaries and growers, when these efforts and financial resources could be used to secure our borders, pay down the debt, or other necessary action.
There is so much evidence that proves that use of medicinal marijuana has real benefits to those who need the drug and use it responsibly. Cancer/chemo patients, severe arthritics, paraplegics, and other disabled people have reported a dramatic improvement in their quality of life after using marijuana.
State and local police forces would be relieved of wasting limited manpower chasing down sick people and those who assist in their well-being. Communities would not be expensed higher taxes to secure "prisoners" for using pot to help themselves feel better. And doctors and other health professionals would be required to complete documentation for those they identify as having a need for this important health assistance, much like they do to have disabled permits issued.
So, what is the problem? Do pharmaceutical companies have that powerful a lobby in the Congress that discussion is not even brought up, or if it is, immediately is shot down by the leadership of both parties who depend on political contributions from Pfizer, Merck, J&J, Bayer and other drug companies, who may lose out on their control of our health needs? Maybe. Many people I have talked to feel this is true.
We need to get this rolling (no pun) now. President Obama and Members of Congress need to know how we feel about this issue. It is time for us to make a change in the quality of life of so many, as our Declaration and Constitution promise and guarantee.
And maybe, finally, the real purpose and benefit of marijuana will be realized by those desperately needing its healing properties.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Trust or Tyrrany
In January, 2012, my son and I were driving to one of my many chemo sessions. We debated, as we often do, this particular time about the Patriot Act and its ramifications in post 9/11 America.
As he sometimes does, he started talking about one of his conspiracy theories. His premise was that 9/11 gave the government a huge excuse to control our daily lives and developed the Patriot Act as a first step in the process. Of course, I said that the act had no questionable motives; that instead, it was a good law, and besides, who would use it for ulterior purposes.
But then, I tried to see his point that day and in the end, we agreed to disagree, end the discussion and moved onto other topics.
Over the last year, I thought about that day and how we tried to convince each other that our view was right. Now, I will admit, I am not a fan of our current President, for reasons explained in other commentaries. But his actions or rather, lack of action since then, has made me question not only the Act, but also other legislation and fiats that this administration and the Bush administration exercised. All in the name of National Security.
The problem here is the denial and obfuscation that the President and his key players said over what was done in violation of several amendments. This has become an overriding issue since the President's reelection. And now the American people are beginning to understand the depth and breadth of what all this means.
I am not blaming Mr Obama for the law or the amendments to it that were made right up to the present day. The Congress, members of both parties, needs to share in the responsibility and culpability of what it did. All in the name of National Security.
The issue at hand is that some in the administration have taken us down a slippery slope that on its surface, appears to be a place from which we may not come back. The President needs to, is required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. To date, he has not done this. Unlike Richard Nixon, he still has a plurality of Americans who still will give him a chance to come clean, admit that wrong was done and will fire those responsible.
His time to do this, however, is growing short, as attested by recent opinion polls. While a leader doesn't govern by his standing in the polls, Mr Obama has demonstrated he doesn't do anything without checking. This has been his way since the beginning and the people are growing tired and weary of this.
The right things for the President to do without further delay are the following:
- Call for repeal of the Patriot Act and its amendments
- Veto any legislation involving CISPA, the Cyber Information System Protection Act, which is said to protect us from foreign cyber attacks but in reality expands government surveillance of the Internet
- Delay implementation of the PPACA (Obamacare) areas which involve IRS oversight
- Fire Eric Holder, James Clapper and others in his administration who allowed violations to the First, Fourth, Fourteenth, and other amendments for occurring under their watch
- Fire those in the IRS, GSA and other agencies who committed fraud and other crimes related to abuses of power and other high crimes and misdemeanors
- Reveal, finally, the names of those responsible for the tragedy and subsequent deceptions related to Benghazi
By doing this, he will start to regain the trust that he has lost so dramatically since January 20. Otherwise, he will become a lame duck now, like Richard Nixon did right after the troops came home in June, 1973. Does he really want that for his legacy?
Senator Obama was appalled with the government's involvement in our lives after 9/11. Why isn't President Obama? What changed, the government or the man? I would say both, and for the worse.
Benjamin Franklin once said, "when the people trade their freedoms for security, tyranny will be the result." Is that what we want?
I know I don't.
As he sometimes does, he started talking about one of his conspiracy theories. His premise was that 9/11 gave the government a huge excuse to control our daily lives and developed the Patriot Act as a first step in the process. Of course, I said that the act had no questionable motives; that instead, it was a good law, and besides, who would use it for ulterior purposes.
But then, I tried to see his point that day and in the end, we agreed to disagree, end the discussion and moved onto other topics.
Over the last year, I thought about that day and how we tried to convince each other that our view was right. Now, I will admit, I am not a fan of our current President, for reasons explained in other commentaries. But his actions or rather, lack of action since then, has made me question not only the Act, but also other legislation and fiats that this administration and the Bush administration exercised. All in the name of National Security.
The problem here is the denial and obfuscation that the President and his key players said over what was done in violation of several amendments. This has become an overriding issue since the President's reelection. And now the American people are beginning to understand the depth and breadth of what all this means.
I am not blaming Mr Obama for the law or the amendments to it that were made right up to the present day. The Congress, members of both parties, needs to share in the responsibility and culpability of what it did. All in the name of National Security.
The issue at hand is that some in the administration have taken us down a slippery slope that on its surface, appears to be a place from which we may not come back. The President needs to, is required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. To date, he has not done this. Unlike Richard Nixon, he still has a plurality of Americans who still will give him a chance to come clean, admit that wrong was done and will fire those responsible.
His time to do this, however, is growing short, as attested by recent opinion polls. While a leader doesn't govern by his standing in the polls, Mr Obama has demonstrated he doesn't do anything without checking. This has been his way since the beginning and the people are growing tired and weary of this.
The right things for the President to do without further delay are the following:
- Call for repeal of the Patriot Act and its amendments
- Veto any legislation involving CISPA, the Cyber Information System Protection Act, which is said to protect us from foreign cyber attacks but in reality expands government surveillance of the Internet
- Delay implementation of the PPACA (Obamacare) areas which involve IRS oversight
- Fire Eric Holder, James Clapper and others in his administration who allowed violations to the First, Fourth, Fourteenth, and other amendments for occurring under their watch
- Fire those in the IRS, GSA and other agencies who committed fraud and other crimes related to abuses of power and other high crimes and misdemeanors
- Reveal, finally, the names of those responsible for the tragedy and subsequent deceptions related to Benghazi
By doing this, he will start to regain the trust that he has lost so dramatically since January 20. Otherwise, he will become a lame duck now, like Richard Nixon did right after the troops came home in June, 1973. Does he really want that for his legacy?
Senator Obama was appalled with the government's involvement in our lives after 9/11. Why isn't President Obama? What changed, the government or the man? I would say both, and for the worse.
Benjamin Franklin once said, "when the people trade their freedoms for security, tyranny will be the result." Is that what we want?
I know I don't.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Field Trips
Short, sweet and to the point. Most people who know me say that I am unable to be so. Generally, as you can see by my commentaries, you can agree and attest that I certainly like to explain my position and how I arrived at my conclusion.
But, this is different. The American government is broke. I know that other Presidents, as is their want, will take a side trip to some such place to see the sights near where official business was occurring. For example, JFK went to Ireland and England on his way back from Berlin in June, 1963, Nixon went to the pyramids on his way from Israel and Jordan, just before he resigned.
Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 all made trips, ostensibly to shore up some alliance or treaty, and will take family with them. But those times, they were better.
President Obama is presently in Northern Ireland for the G8 conference. He brought his wife, as some Presidents have, and his children, certainly because they are underage and should spend time with their parents. On the surface, I don't have a problem with that.
But during this trip, he is also going to three countries in Africa, which in this time of sequester, if school-age children cannot go to the people's house because of cutbacks in the budget, then the President and his family should not be going to an African jaunt which will cost approximately $60 to $100 million.
It makes no sense to me. How about you?
But, this is different. The American government is broke. I know that other Presidents, as is their want, will take a side trip to some such place to see the sights near where official business was occurring. For example, JFK went to Ireland and England on his way back from Berlin in June, 1963, Nixon went to the pyramids on his way from Israel and Jordan, just before he resigned.
Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 all made trips, ostensibly to shore up some alliance or treaty, and will take family with them. But those times, they were better.
President Obama is presently in Northern Ireland for the G8 conference. He brought his wife, as some Presidents have, and his children, certainly because they are underage and should spend time with their parents. On the surface, I don't have a problem with that.
But during this trip, he is also going to three countries in Africa, which in this time of sequester, if school-age children cannot go to the people's house because of cutbacks in the budget, then the President and his family should not be going to an African jaunt which will cost approximately $60 to $100 million.
It makes no sense to me. How about you?
The Constitution, the Church and Obamacare
I watched Fr Jonathan Morris on Fox and Friends on Sunday. He was discussing Obamacare, the Church and the one year exemption religious entities were given last year to delay implementation of the parts of the law which violate religious positions.
The Catholic Church and other religions, including Jewish, Protestant, Islam and others, have basic tenets concerning birth control, abortion, and other choice issues. Essentially, the Church believes that condoms, the pill, IUDs and other methods of birth control are immoral because they prevent conception, which to the Church, violates the premise of the conjugal act. And abortion is the taking of life, since the Church and other religious entities believe life begins at conception.
Understand that when I use the term "Church" in this commentary, I mean all religious entities, faith-based employers, and others whose views while not mirroring the Catholic Church, certainly are not secular in any way. Even atheistic views are respected here, since there are some atheistic views which are not state-based. And, also understand that, at best, I am a cafeteria Catholic, so I don't agree with all of the Church's positions.
Now, we all know this has been a debate for more than 40 years, since before Roe v Wade and other legal cases concerning this riveting issue. People like me, who believe that life is sacrosanct, but also believe that people should have the right to choose, wrestle with this problem constantly. We don't believe we have the right to tell others what they may do with their bodies, but at the same time, as with the Gosnell case, understand that it is a baby that a woman carries, not a bunch of cells that may become a chicken.
I don't mean to be flippant, but understand that the Church is a self-insurer, like Home Depot, GE, etc, which means these companies are the actual insurer and Blue Cross or other insurance company acts as a Third Party Adjuster (TPA). The Church is classified as such because as an employer, it is too big to have an insurance company provide group health insurance for the hundreds of thousands of its employees.
So, because it is technically an insurance company, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates that the insurance company provide sterilization, reproductive, and pregnancy prevention and termination services as part of its plan offering to the employees of the employer's insurer. Got that? The Church is required to provide abortion services to its female employees, in violation of its sanctity of life tenet. And yet, in its hospitals, abortions are not performed nor permitted.
From a Constitutional standpoint, this is a violation of the premise of separation of church and state, as well as, a violation of the first amendment, to wit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Currently, the Church and others are suing the federal government over the the violation of those rights under the Constitution by being forced to comply with this part of obamacare.
There are at least a dozen separate cases pending in the federal courts, and ultimately one or more of these cases will end up in the Supreme Court. The exemption that HHS issued last year will expire on August 1. If the Supreme Court does not rule on any pending case before then, the Church will be in technical violation of the law at that time, unless Secretary Sebellius issues an extension of the exemption.
Keep in mind, that the Church operates many health care facilities across the country, including Catholic Health Services of Long Island, Inc, which people of all faiths and non-faiths are welcome. It operates six hospitals, three nursing homes, a palliative care center, a rehab center and a hospice, as well as, a visiting nurse home care service. If the federal government forces the Church to comply with its mandate, what will the Church do? It could cut back services to the community because it may be forced to close some facilities and lay off massive numbers of employees, in order not to pay the huge dollar amount of fines and penalties required under this legislation.
So, what can we do? Well, we can engage in a massive letter-writing exercise to our Representatives, Senators, Secretary Sebellius, the President and the Supreme Court voicing our objection to the mandate forcing the Church and others to act against its moral convictions and religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. We can voice our concerns to friends and families and have them do the same. It's amazing what the Power of the Pen could accomplish.
And we can demand that this legislation be finally repealed and instead, revisit the concept of health care to draw up a law that makes sense and does not infringe on anybody's rights. We have read this law, and in spite of what some want to say or want us to believe, we really don't like what's in it.
It can be done, we have done it before, and we will do it again.
The Catholic Church and other religions, including Jewish, Protestant, Islam and others, have basic tenets concerning birth control, abortion, and other choice issues. Essentially, the Church believes that condoms, the pill, IUDs and other methods of birth control are immoral because they prevent conception, which to the Church, violates the premise of the conjugal act. And abortion is the taking of life, since the Church and other religious entities believe life begins at conception.
Understand that when I use the term "Church" in this commentary, I mean all religious entities, faith-based employers, and others whose views while not mirroring the Catholic Church, certainly are not secular in any way. Even atheistic views are respected here, since there are some atheistic views which are not state-based. And, also understand that, at best, I am a cafeteria Catholic, so I don't agree with all of the Church's positions.
Now, we all know this has been a debate for more than 40 years, since before Roe v Wade and other legal cases concerning this riveting issue. People like me, who believe that life is sacrosanct, but also believe that people should have the right to choose, wrestle with this problem constantly. We don't believe we have the right to tell others what they may do with their bodies, but at the same time, as with the Gosnell case, understand that it is a baby that a woman carries, not a bunch of cells that may become a chicken.
I don't mean to be flippant, but understand that the Church is a self-insurer, like Home Depot, GE, etc, which means these companies are the actual insurer and Blue Cross or other insurance company acts as a Third Party Adjuster (TPA). The Church is classified as such because as an employer, it is too big to have an insurance company provide group health insurance for the hundreds of thousands of its employees.
So, because it is technically an insurance company, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates that the insurance company provide sterilization, reproductive, and pregnancy prevention and termination services as part of its plan offering to the employees of the employer's insurer. Got that? The Church is required to provide abortion services to its female employees, in violation of its sanctity of life tenet. And yet, in its hospitals, abortions are not performed nor permitted.
From a Constitutional standpoint, this is a violation of the premise of separation of church and state, as well as, a violation of the first amendment, to wit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Currently, the Church and others are suing the federal government over the the violation of those rights under the Constitution by being forced to comply with this part of obamacare.
There are at least a dozen separate cases pending in the federal courts, and ultimately one or more of these cases will end up in the Supreme Court. The exemption that HHS issued last year will expire on August 1. If the Supreme Court does not rule on any pending case before then, the Church will be in technical violation of the law at that time, unless Secretary Sebellius issues an extension of the exemption.
Keep in mind, that the Church operates many health care facilities across the country, including Catholic Health Services of Long Island, Inc, which people of all faiths and non-faiths are welcome. It operates six hospitals, three nursing homes, a palliative care center, a rehab center and a hospice, as well as, a visiting nurse home care service. If the federal government forces the Church to comply with its mandate, what will the Church do? It could cut back services to the community because it may be forced to close some facilities and lay off massive numbers of employees, in order not to pay the huge dollar amount of fines and penalties required under this legislation.
So, what can we do? Well, we can engage in a massive letter-writing exercise to our Representatives, Senators, Secretary Sebellius, the President and the Supreme Court voicing our objection to the mandate forcing the Church and others to act against its moral convictions and religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. We can voice our concerns to friends and families and have them do the same. It's amazing what the Power of the Pen could accomplish.
And we can demand that this legislation be finally repealed and instead, revisit the concept of health care to draw up a law that makes sense and does not infringe on anybody's rights. We have read this law, and in spite of what some want to say or want us to believe, we really don't like what's in it.
It can be done, we have done it before, and we will do it again.
Friday, June 14, 2013
A Fathers Day Tribute
Hallmark has pushed the holiday of Fathers Day since before WWI, in order to have us care to send the very best to our Dads. On Sunday, June 16, we celebrate that great day again.
In 1910, Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington held the first Fathers Day to honor her father, William Smart, a Civil War veteran who raised six children as a single parent. This tradition slowly grew legs, with various Presidents granting unofficial proclamations until 1966, when LBJ signed the first official proclamation making the third Sunday in June that year, Fathers Day. Finally, in 1972, President Nixon signed legislation making the holiday permanent.
We celebrate the day to pay homage and respect to those men who are fathers, to those men who who offer parental guidance to children who don't have a Dad in his or her life, and others who are there as surrogate fathers, generally. It is as important as Mothers Day, a day we honor our moms for all the things they do for us.
My Dad was hardworking, sometimes working two jobs to take care of his six children, four boys and two girls, and our stay at home Mom. In those days, there were larger families, with five or more children in each, and moms, generally, stayed at home to care for their children. Day care in the 50s and 60s was non-existent, certainly only in its infancy.
But he was home for dinner most nights, as his part-time job was two nights a week and his days off from his full-time job. He was able to coach our little league team while his sons played and later, umpire for several years after we were done. He was there some afternoons and almost every Sunday, to drive two of my brothers and me to deliver our paper routes.
He taught us that working hard was a value that was respected and appreciated by supervisors as a great work ethic. I have tried to pass this on to my children and I am proud to say, that they, too, have great work ethics.
My Dad, and my Mom, who have been married 63 years, will both be 84 this summer. Mom still tries to act like she is 54 (lol) but my Dad is starting to show his age, physically and mentally. But that's ok because he has lived a long and hard life, and has much to show for his efforts.
So, Happy Fathers Day, Dad, and to all the dads out there, young and old. Enjoy this day because even our government says you can. No matter whether you have to work today or not, make it the best ever!
And have a dog with kraut and Jack on the rocks with a twist of lime for me. After all, you've earned it!
In 1910, Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington held the first Fathers Day to honor her father, William Smart, a Civil War veteran who raised six children as a single parent. This tradition slowly grew legs, with various Presidents granting unofficial proclamations until 1966, when LBJ signed the first official proclamation making the third Sunday in June that year, Fathers Day. Finally, in 1972, President Nixon signed legislation making the holiday permanent.
We celebrate the day to pay homage and respect to those men who are fathers, to those men who who offer parental guidance to children who don't have a Dad in his or her life, and others who are there as surrogate fathers, generally. It is as important as Mothers Day, a day we honor our moms for all the things they do for us.
My Dad was hardworking, sometimes working two jobs to take care of his six children, four boys and two girls, and our stay at home Mom. In those days, there were larger families, with five or more children in each, and moms, generally, stayed at home to care for their children. Day care in the 50s and 60s was non-existent, certainly only in its infancy.
But he was home for dinner most nights, as his part-time job was two nights a week and his days off from his full-time job. He was able to coach our little league team while his sons played and later, umpire for several years after we were done. He was there some afternoons and almost every Sunday, to drive two of my brothers and me to deliver our paper routes.
He taught us that working hard was a value that was respected and appreciated by supervisors as a great work ethic. I have tried to pass this on to my children and I am proud to say, that they, too, have great work ethics.
My Dad, and my Mom, who have been married 63 years, will both be 84 this summer. Mom still tries to act like she is 54 (lol) but my Dad is starting to show his age, physically and mentally. But that's ok because he has lived a long and hard life, and has much to show for his efforts.
So, Happy Fathers Day, Dad, and to all the dads out there, young and old. Enjoy this day because even our government says you can. No matter whether you have to work today or not, make it the best ever!
And have a dog with kraut and Jack on the rocks with a twist of lime for me. After all, you've earned it!
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Time to Reconsider
I have tried to stay away from the news this week because even in the Nixon/Watergate Era, the other paper of record, the Washington Post, even with its seemingly front row view of the events at hand took a break every two weeks or so. But in this era of less than 24 hour news cycles, it is almost impossible to stay away.
Late Tuesday and all day Wednesday, we heard about the latest violation to our freedoms done by the IRS. It was reported that some "eager" agents showed up at a health insurer in California with sidearms showing, professing to have a warrant for 60 million, you read that right, 60 MILLION insureds' records. Guess what? THERE WAS NO WARRANT!!
The insurance company, in order to avoid a confrontation with the IRS, handed over records like they were handing out fries with the burger. No regard for HIPAA regulations, and forget about a patient's right to privacy, apparently the IRS is not required to comply.
The premise of HIPAA, besides its portability, is to protect each of us from having an unauthorized individual or entity from obtaining our health information without our knowledge or permission. I have signed a zillion HIPAA forms over the last three years and have had to name my wife and my children, with their phone numbers, to grant then access to my health records. And the funny thing is, the doctor knows my family and I keep going back to the same hospital.
But the IRS, with no notification, and NO WARRANT, just showed up and was given all sorts of information. And this is THE agency that will be administering Obamacare. Oh, sorry, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which apparently neither protects the patient, and his rights, nor is affordable.
So let's sum up.
First, we have an IRS that selectively investigates conservative applicants for tax free status of their organizations, known by various senior officials. Second, we have a Department of Justice and an attorney general who decides it is going to snoop on the AP and James Rosen of FoxNews and not tell them.
Third, we have HHS Secretary Sebelius seeking donations from insurance companies and other entities she regulates, to fund Obamacare, because the Congress is reluctant to do so.
Next, we have about six simultaneous scandals ongoing with the EPA, with department heads maintaining secret email accounts and other abuses.
Then, we have NSA actually spying on all of us through some questionable language in the Patriot Act, that gives the government free reign over our phone calls, emails, texts and other digital communication.
We can't forget about pre-election troubles, either, like Fast and Furious, that wonderful gunrunning operation that a border patrol officer was killed, and no information was voluntarily forthcoming. Or Benghazi, where an Ambassador and three of his colleagues were brutally murdered, and his killer remains free.
Now this gross violation of our health privacy rights. Those of us who remember Watergate were appalled by the comparatively minor abuses of power done by President Nixon and his henchmen. And for that, Nixon resigned.
If anyone still believes President Obama that he "didn't know, and is outraged and angered by all this, but doesn't want to talk about an ongoing investigation", now needs to view themselves in the mirror and tell the face looking back that he or she isn't drinking the koolaid.
Any honest and sincere person would be expected to want to believe if it were only one, or even two, indiscretions. But even a devotee of this president needs to put country over party, or person, and say it is now time for him to go, whether because he knew and condoned criminal behavior, or he didn't know and therefore, is incompetent.
Loyalty should lie, ultimately, with the country and the Constitution. Our flag represents our country and our Constitution. So, next time remember that when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it is to those principles and not to any one party or man that we pledge our sacred vow.
This is not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. This is, my friends, the UNITED States of America. Let's make it so again.
Late Tuesday and all day Wednesday, we heard about the latest violation to our freedoms done by the IRS. It was reported that some "eager" agents showed up at a health insurer in California with sidearms showing, professing to have a warrant for 60 million, you read that right, 60 MILLION insureds' records. Guess what? THERE WAS NO WARRANT!!
The insurance company, in order to avoid a confrontation with the IRS, handed over records like they were handing out fries with the burger. No regard for HIPAA regulations, and forget about a patient's right to privacy, apparently the IRS is not required to comply.
The premise of HIPAA, besides its portability, is to protect each of us from having an unauthorized individual or entity from obtaining our health information without our knowledge or permission. I have signed a zillion HIPAA forms over the last three years and have had to name my wife and my children, with their phone numbers, to grant then access to my health records. And the funny thing is, the doctor knows my family and I keep going back to the same hospital.
But the IRS, with no notification, and NO WARRANT, just showed up and was given all sorts of information. And this is THE agency that will be administering Obamacare. Oh, sorry, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which apparently neither protects the patient, and his rights, nor is affordable.
So let's sum up.
First, we have an IRS that selectively investigates conservative applicants for tax free status of their organizations, known by various senior officials. Second, we have a Department of Justice and an attorney general who decides it is going to snoop on the AP and James Rosen of FoxNews and not tell them.
Third, we have HHS Secretary Sebelius seeking donations from insurance companies and other entities she regulates, to fund Obamacare, because the Congress is reluctant to do so.
Next, we have about six simultaneous scandals ongoing with the EPA, with department heads maintaining secret email accounts and other abuses.
Then, we have NSA actually spying on all of us through some questionable language in the Patriot Act, that gives the government free reign over our phone calls, emails, texts and other digital communication.
We can't forget about pre-election troubles, either, like Fast and Furious, that wonderful gunrunning operation that a border patrol officer was killed, and no information was voluntarily forthcoming. Or Benghazi, where an Ambassador and three of his colleagues were brutally murdered, and his killer remains free.
Now this gross violation of our health privacy rights. Those of us who remember Watergate were appalled by the comparatively minor abuses of power done by President Nixon and his henchmen. And for that, Nixon resigned.
If anyone still believes President Obama that he "didn't know, and is outraged and angered by all this, but doesn't want to talk about an ongoing investigation", now needs to view themselves in the mirror and tell the face looking back that he or she isn't drinking the koolaid.
Any honest and sincere person would be expected to want to believe if it were only one, or even two, indiscretions. But even a devotee of this president needs to put country over party, or person, and say it is now time for him to go, whether because he knew and condoned criminal behavior, or he didn't know and therefore, is incompetent.
Loyalty should lie, ultimately, with the country and the Constitution. Our flag represents our country and our Constitution. So, next time remember that when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it is to those principles and not to any one party or man that we pledge our sacred vow.
This is not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. This is, my friends, the UNITED States of America. Let's make it so again.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
A Time, The Man
JFK. Ronald Reagan. The two best presidents we have had since 1950. Why?
Well, for starters, Kennedy was a strong on defense and so was Reagan. Kennedy was a strong anti-communist and, again, so was Reagan. Kennedy cut taxes, and Reagan did, too.
But the biggest reason why they were both great was their ability to inspire. Each man quite honestly could turn a phrase and reach deep into your heart and mind. Both had great speechwriters, but they were words on paper. It was the delivery that got you each time.
Kennedy will forever be best known for his Inaugural Address, probably the best IA ever written and ever spoken. Reagan, the night of the Challenger disaster, our greatest tragedy in the space program to that time, understood the terrible event and consoled all of us that night with his soothing delivery and comforting words.
It can be said that there were other speeches given by other men and women that were as inspirational as those spoken by Kennedy and Reagan, but not as well-delivered with such heartfelt emotion.
Both men had a quick wit, charming grace and were great communicators with the people. Both were loved and respected by those they came into contact. Both enjoyed relatively high standing in the polls throughout their Presidencies.
Kennedy and Reagan each had an error in judgement where they made a terrible blunder. Kennedy's was the Bay of Pigs fiasco and Reagan's was Iran-Contra. Each man came to the American people, took responsibility for the mistake and was forgiven for the transgression. And each soared in the polls after that.
Both had to deal with a Soviet Union that seemed to be hell-bent on mutually assured destruction and reached out instead to start or restart disarmament talks, Kennedy with his Peace Speech and Reagan with his meeting with Gorbachev in Geneva. Both stood up to the Soviet Union in Berlin, Kennedy with his statement, "Ich bin ein Berliner!" and Reagan with, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Both of these Presidents would be appalled over what has become known to us over the last several months, and over the last ten years. Each man took the words of the Constitution literally and believed that our Founding Fathers understood the significance of an overbearing central government. Each President spoke often of smaller government and ultimately about protecting the rights of the people.
In either case, their party label, Democrat for JFK and Republican for Ronald Reagan, means nothing because the party they belonged to no longer exists. Each party has been transformed from what existed when they each were President. Instead, a better label for each man would be satisfied by the phrase, Great American.
Perhaps, someday we will again have a President the likes of a John F Kennedy or a Ronald W Reagan. In fact, I long for it. Do you?
Well, for starters, Kennedy was a strong on defense and so was Reagan. Kennedy was a strong anti-communist and, again, so was Reagan. Kennedy cut taxes, and Reagan did, too.
But the biggest reason why they were both great was their ability to inspire. Each man quite honestly could turn a phrase and reach deep into your heart and mind. Both had great speechwriters, but they were words on paper. It was the delivery that got you each time.
Kennedy will forever be best known for his Inaugural Address, probably the best IA ever written and ever spoken. Reagan, the night of the Challenger disaster, our greatest tragedy in the space program to that time, understood the terrible event and consoled all of us that night with his soothing delivery and comforting words.
It can be said that there were other speeches given by other men and women that were as inspirational as those spoken by Kennedy and Reagan, but not as well-delivered with such heartfelt emotion.
Both men had a quick wit, charming grace and were great communicators with the people. Both were loved and respected by those they came into contact. Both enjoyed relatively high standing in the polls throughout their Presidencies.
Kennedy and Reagan each had an error in judgement where they made a terrible blunder. Kennedy's was the Bay of Pigs fiasco and Reagan's was Iran-Contra. Each man came to the American people, took responsibility for the mistake and was forgiven for the transgression. And each soared in the polls after that.
Both had to deal with a Soviet Union that seemed to be hell-bent on mutually assured destruction and reached out instead to start or restart disarmament talks, Kennedy with his Peace Speech and Reagan with his meeting with Gorbachev in Geneva. Both stood up to the Soviet Union in Berlin, Kennedy with his statement, "Ich bin ein Berliner!" and Reagan with, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Both of these Presidents would be appalled over what has become known to us over the last several months, and over the last ten years. Each man took the words of the Constitution literally and believed that our Founding Fathers understood the significance of an overbearing central government. Each President spoke often of smaller government and ultimately about protecting the rights of the people.
In either case, their party label, Democrat for JFK and Republican for Ronald Reagan, means nothing because the party they belonged to no longer exists. Each party has been transformed from what existed when they each were President. Instead, a better label for each man would be satisfied by the phrase, Great American.
Perhaps, someday we will again have a President the likes of a John F Kennedy or a Ronald W Reagan. In fact, I long for it. Do you?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
John F Kennedy - Civil Rights Speech
50 years ago today, June 11, 1963, President John F Kennedy gave a speech related to the entry of two African American students to the University of Alabama. This speech became the groundwork to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By the time this became law, JFK was dead.
This speech was delivered during the height of the civil rights movement, following a spring of horrid violence against blacks and the whites who defended them. Certainly, Members of both the House and Senate from the Deep South did not find favor with the message or the tone of the speech. Some of these people included Sens Al Gore Sr, J William Fullbright and Robert Byrd.
Americans of all backgrounds and regions were finally becoming aware of the racial strife which predominated the south but was not limited to it, thanks to the hard work and risks taken by so many journalists, and broadcast nightly on the three major TV networks of the time. Prior to 1963, President Kennedy took a tepid interest in the civil rights movement, believing that it was a state and local matter. But after the Birmingham disaster in May and the continued unrest at the University of Alabama, he knew he could no longer sit on the sidelines.
The following link provides both the written speech and an MP3 audio version in its entirety.
http://www.americanrhetoric.
After this speech, President Kennedy put the full moral character and legal resources of the United States behind this movement. He actively pursued the injustice of discrimination by speaking out against prejudice and bias, and pushed the Congress hard in delivering a Civil Rights law that would protect minorities from the continued discrimination which had been made legal by the Supreme Court ruling of Plessy v Ferguson, and the various state and local Jim Crow laws.
During the March on Washington in August, 1963, where hundreds of thousands of blacks and whites rallied at the Lincoln Memorial, speeches were given by many people calling for the ratification of the pending legislation, repeal of so many terrible laws and, respect and dignity for African American and other minorities. The highlight of the day's events was the riveting "I Have A Dream" speech given by Rev Martin Luther King Jr.
Later, when the march's leaders returned to the White House as invited guests of President Kennedy, he greeted MLK with "I have a dream, too."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Johnson, is the basis for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and so many laws which protect all of us against discrimination in so many areas of our lives.
And it all started 50 years ago today, when President Kennedy started a speech with "Good evening".
This speech was delivered during the height of the civil rights movement, following a spring of horrid violence against blacks and the whites who defended them. Certainly, Members of both the House and Senate from the Deep South did not find favor with the message or the tone of the speech. Some of these people included Sens Al Gore Sr, J William Fullbright and Robert Byrd.
Americans of all backgrounds and regions were finally becoming aware of the racial strife which predominated the south but was not limited to it, thanks to the hard work and risks taken by so many journalists, and broadcast nightly on the three major TV networks of the time. Prior to 1963, President Kennedy took a tepid interest in the civil rights movement, believing that it was a state and local matter. But after the Birmingham disaster in May and the continued unrest at the University of Alabama, he knew he could no longer sit on the sidelines.
The following link provides both the written speech and an MP3 audio version in its entirety.
http://www.americanrhetoric.
After this speech, President Kennedy put the full moral character and legal resources of the United States behind this movement. He actively pursued the injustice of discrimination by speaking out against prejudice and bias, and pushed the Congress hard in delivering a Civil Rights law that would protect minorities from the continued discrimination which had been made legal by the Supreme Court ruling of Plessy v Ferguson, and the various state and local Jim Crow laws.
During the March on Washington in August, 1963, where hundreds of thousands of blacks and whites rallied at the Lincoln Memorial, speeches were given by many people calling for the ratification of the pending legislation, repeal of so many terrible laws and, respect and dignity for African American and other minorities. The highlight of the day's events was the riveting "I Have A Dream" speech given by Rev Martin Luther King Jr.
Later, when the march's leaders returned to the White House as invited guests of President Kennedy, he greeted MLK with "I have a dream, too."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Johnson, is the basis for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and so many laws which protect all of us against discrimination in so many areas of our lives.
And it all started 50 years ago today, when President Kennedy started a speech with "Good evening".
Monday, June 10, 2013
A Great Distraction
Tough weekend, friends. My Mets were swept again by the Miami Marlins, the President can't seem to dig himself out of the quasi-constitutional mess around him, and people on both sides were fighting about things seemingly out of control.
But, of course, there were bright spots, too. I went to my friend's aunt's 103rd birthday party, was the bartender, and as such, spoke with countless nice people there about all sorts of interesting things. One of the things we talked about were movies.
The conversation came up about best movies based on a book, whether a true story or fiction. My vote was for, you guessed it, The Godfather.
Why, you might ask. Well, I will tell you.
This book gave us three Academy Award nominees for Best Picture, of which one and two won. It was a breakout film for many of today's stars including Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, John Cazale (more on him in a minute), James Caan, Talia Shire and in my view, America's greatest living actor today, Robert Deniro. I know there are others, but these are the cream.
It is the only movie nominated and winning the Academy Award for Best Picture, where its sequel also won. GF1 won for Best Actor, Marlon Brando, GF2 won for Best Supporting Actor, Robert Deniro, and the only time the same character had a nomination for it and won, Vito Corleone.
Now, to John Cazale. He was only in six movies in his life and all six were nominated for Best Picture. They were GF1, GF2 and GF3, Dog Day Afternoon (also with Pacino), The Conversation with Gene Hackman and The Deer Hunter with Jon Voight and Deniro. He died at the age of 42 while making The Deer Hunter.
There is so much more trivia associated with The Godfather, that if you know it then add the above information to it. This is why it is to me the best book ever to be made into a movie.
So, knowing this information now doesn't make our problems go away. But it was a great distraction, right?
But, of course, there were bright spots, too. I went to my friend's aunt's 103rd birthday party, was the bartender, and as such, spoke with countless nice people there about all sorts of interesting things. One of the things we talked about were movies.
The conversation came up about best movies based on a book, whether a true story or fiction. My vote was for, you guessed it, The Godfather.
Why, you might ask. Well, I will tell you.
This book gave us three Academy Award nominees for Best Picture, of which one and two won. It was a breakout film for many of today's stars including Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, John Cazale (more on him in a minute), James Caan, Talia Shire and in my view, America's greatest living actor today, Robert Deniro. I know there are others, but these are the cream.
It is the only movie nominated and winning the Academy Award for Best Picture, where its sequel also won. GF1 won for Best Actor, Marlon Brando, GF2 won for Best Supporting Actor, Robert Deniro, and the only time the same character had a nomination for it and won, Vito Corleone.
Now, to John Cazale. He was only in six movies in his life and all six were nominated for Best Picture. They were GF1, GF2 and GF3, Dog Day Afternoon (also with Pacino), The Conversation with Gene Hackman and The Deer Hunter with Jon Voight and Deniro. He died at the age of 42 while making The Deer Hunter.
There is so much more trivia associated with The Godfather, that if you know it then add the above information to it. This is why it is to me the best book ever to be made into a movie.
So, knowing this information now doesn't make our problems go away. But it was a great distraction, right?