In a Land of Freedom, Our First Duty is to Vote

So we're coming up on voting this year for a new president. Something you should know about me is that I take voting very seriously. It is a basic human right in any free and democratic country, and it is something we should treasure and exercise.

Vote your mind, vote your heart, vote your soul, and VOTE!

I will admit to being seriously annoyed by people who select candidates at random or by sophisticated means such as "eeny, meeny, miny, moe", but at least that is better than someone who doesn't even bother to fill out a sheet of paper and stuff it in the mail or ballot box.

Voting is the easiest thing you can do--easier than paying your bills or wiping your bum with them (or both). Furthermore, it's the easiest way to act if your government is not filling you with inspiration.

So for those who complain about government but refuse (out of protest?) to vote, I say close your mouth and let your ballot speak for you. It is a treasured right in our glorious land of liberty, and the primary way our founding fathers conceived to preserve it.

"Unchecked Excess"

Front page news today read: "Obama warns Wall Street against 'unchecked excess'." I had to laugh, because it came from Obama. In his own words, he said, "We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis."

Stimulus bill? Twelve trillion deficit? ...Ring any bells? During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an unprecedented and outrageous $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, took over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

Perhaps someone should have warned Obama (and the all too helpful legislative branch) about "unchecked excess."

May we all observe the restraint of ancient Rome's Cicero (106-43 B.C.), who said: "The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled."

I hope we live to see it happen!

Iran Global Day of Action - Democracy at its Finest

Iran's government crackdown to forbid mourning fallen protestors just shows the desperation and insecurity of the current regime. They know they have no more rightful claim to govern, if they must counterfeit election results. Their people are against them. Even despite threats of bloodshed from Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, millions of protestors have come out in defiance.

The democratic world should certainly support these peaceful demonstrations, only turned to acts of terror and bloodshed by Iran's revolutionary guard. Last week's Worldwide Day of Protest against the Iranian regime may have fallen on some deaf ears, but its civil, peaceful protests showed support for the Iranian people and was truly democracy at its finest:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ir9LYdbXUssfMOpgwiaXiT-FUq-Q

http://business.maktoob.com/20090000008539/Worldwide_day_of_protest_against_Iran_regime/Article.htm

According to all of the reports I'm reading, this is just the beginning of the opposition. Let us hope that Iran will soon achieve democracy and that they will soon be able to enjoy freedom: America's most precious possession.

The Gates Arrest: Shakespearean Tragedy or Comedy of Errors?

What a perfect storm this Gates arrest turned out to be... Keep in mind that this kind of call could have been made on anyone, but it was made on a distinguished Harvard professor--the head of the Black History Department, no less, and very well respected in his field. The police come to check him out--it could have been a robbery, conceivably--two men were seen forcing open a door in a home that had not been occupied for some time (apparently, Gates had been travelling in China). Sgt. James Crowley, a white police officer, asks Gates for identification and cooperation. Gates feels pushed around, and tries to stand up for himself, assuming it is racial bias that motivates the cops.

We can see this through two lenses, now. There's a tired professor who returns home with an illness/infection he contracted abroad (he was walking with a cane), only to find a stuck door. He's probably tired. He just wants to rest. Then the cops show up. That's all he needs. He feels they're giving him more trouble than necessary, and suspects racial profiling. He hears about it all the time. Reads about it. His life work is the study of the history of black oppression in the US, for crying out loud. That's Gates' lens.

The other lens: a policeman gets a very routine call. He gets this kind of thing a lot. He knows the protocol. He sees the individual involved is agitated, resisting. The procedure is to make an arrest if suspect's behavior is disturbing the peace, and in this officer's mind, the suspect is making a big hairy deal out of nothing. The cop is just doing his job. Maybe he's tired, too. That's Sgt. Crowley's lens.

I may be far off on what these two were thinking and feeling at the time, but on the surface it seems such a shame--another case of racial profiling--America should be past this, right? There seems here to be a parallel to Shakepeare's Othello, where we get the idea that Iago's hatred for Othello would not be so bitter if Othello weren't black. At least, that's one interpretation--Shakespeare never spells this out, of course. Either way, there is the resulting calamity. It just makes the tragedy worse when you think it was only due to Othello's color that he became a victim, and many victims in America have committed no other crime than this, to be sure. So sad.

But then you read the rest of the news on the Gates arrest, and what reads at first as racial profiling is soon revealed to be a true comedy of errors: Prof. Gates and Pres. Obama errors.

(AP) — "The white police sergeant criticized by President Barack Obama for arresting black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his Massachusetts home is a police academy expert on understanding racial profiling.

Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class about racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming.

'I have nothing but the highest respect for him as a police officer. He is very professional and he is a good role model for the young recruits in the police academy,' Fleming told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The course, called 'Racial Profiling,' teaches about different cultures that officers could encounter in their community 'and how you don't want to single people out because of their ethnic background or the culture they come from,' Fleming said. The academy trains cadets for cities across the region." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly)

Professor Gates just happened to get arrested by an officer who teaches a class about racial profiling, and who was hand-picked for this job by a black police commissioner. Crowley is also well-respected and the policemen with him at Gates' arrest all stand behind him and confirm he was following protocol.

We're also talking about an arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This is not some ignorant corner of humanity, here. If you're going to find an enlightened police force, I'm guessing it's in Cambridge Massachusetts. Could it be that Gates overreacted just a little bit?

It's just too funny--what are the odds that Gates would get this particular police officer on his doorstep and then accuse him of racial bias? No wonder Obama ate his words so fast. In my opinion, Sgt. Crowley deserves a real apology--it speaks to his character that he's not demanding one.

Obama "Appalled and Outraged," but ... Surprised?

I've been mulling over this for a while. The latest news of Iranian national police tear gassing protesters at a prayer sermon this week was the impetus for my blogging about it now.

Obama has stated since the before his presidency that he wants to create a more open dialogue with the Iranians, a statement Hillary Clinton correctly labelled naive. Let's look at the facts: the current Iranian government knowingly harbors terrorists (whose main mission is to eradicate all "infidels"); it has a history of breaking UN agreements, including attempting to build nuclear weapons; it designs missiles able to target Israel, and it has openly declared its enemies as Israel and the US, going so far as to have all students in Iran ritually curse Israel and US every morning after prayer. Most recently, it has counterfeited election results, and violently suppressed its political opponents. Obama, considering Iran’s history, did you expect more from them?

Is President Obama truly naive enough to believe a national government so mired in hatred for the US in both rhetoric and action will change if we engage in some heart-to-heart talks? I hate to be a naysayer, here. After all, it's clear that the best way to misunderstand someone--anyone--is to create distance from them, and so in this way the long diplomatic silence (thirty years) with Iran is at the very least counterproductive. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," so said Sun-tzu. This is Good Diplomacy 101. Whether it is because he truly admires these men or because he is trying to garner a more positive image, Obama, for all of his liberal leanings, has been trying to channel Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln since the beginning of his campaign for president. And it was Reagan who played a part in melting the iron curtain and Lincoln who said, "With malice towards none; with charity for all." I see much wisdom in this approach.

But I believe Obama takes it too far. Perhaps his gestures toward Iran and the rest of the Muslim world are empty--political flourishes to garner more public support if he takes a hard stance against them later. They could also be the result of his Muslim background. Either way, when Obama declared himself "appalled and outraged" by the deaths and intimidation of protesters in Tehran's streets, I have to ask, is he really that surprised?

Again, this is a country that harbors terrorists--maybe not the same terrorists of 9-11, but definitely on the same side. In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.” U.S. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told CFR.org in June 2007 there is “overwhelming evidence” that Iran supports terrorists in Iraq and “compelling” evidence that it does the same in Afghanistan.

Again, this is a government that has rejected and rebelled against UN sanctions and requests. Shortly after Obama's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month, Iran announced that it had test-fired a missile with a range of 1350 miles (capable of hitting Israel). Subtle threat. In the same announcement
President Ahmadinejad again insisted that Iran would not give in to any pressure over its nuclear program. In his words: "They (Western governments) said if you don't stop, we will adopt (sanctions) resolutions. They thought we would retreat but that will not happen."

"I told them you can adopt 100 sets of sanctions but nothing will change."
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5354673/Iran-fires-missile-capable-of-hitting-Israel.html)

(The UN Security Council has imposed three packages of sanctions against Iran after it failed to heed successive ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.)

In his speech in Cairo at the beginning of June, Obama called for a new beginning in ties w/ Muslim community, "This cycle of suspicion and discord must end," he said, which was met with the following response:

"Highlighting hostility the U.S. leader faces from some quarters, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in a message on a website, warned Muslims against alliance with Christians and Jews, saying it would annul their faith.

The supreme leader of Washington's regional arch foe, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a speech before Obama spoke that America was "deeply hated" and only action, not "slogans," could change that." (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL410341420090604?sp=true)

The simple truth is that Iranian hard-liners do not want genuinely improved relations with the United States. They see the U.S. as the "Great Satan," and they fear that better relations with the U.S. will pose a threat to their hold on power. Moreover, making the compromises that would be necessary to open the door to improved relations would undermine the legitimacy of their revolutionary ideology and weaken their claim to leadership of the Muslim world.

Last month, Obama said he shared the world's "deep concerns about the [Iranian] election" but asserted that it was "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling." He further stated Iran's leaders will face consequences if they continue "the threats, the beatings and imprisonments" against protesters, but he has declined to say what those consequences might be.

I'm not saying Obama needs to start a fight with Iran--perhaps he is right to try and avoid one. But then again, it would seem that Iran has already taken its gloves off and is on a path to become a stronger threat to us and to the Middle East. They will be the ones to start the fight, surely, when they have the power to also end it. We must prevent them from gaining that advantage. The only real hope Obama's speeches have of succeeding is if they embolden the citizens of Iran to continue their protests against the government. We should be helping the protesters more-- at the very least, condemning the brutality of their current leaders, and altering our rhetoric to reflect the truth of what is really happening.

Considering Iran's actions, Obama's statement that he expects a "positive response" from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year is laughable. I submit that talk about reconciliation represents the foolishness of wishful thinking over our actual disappointing experience. Tehran may go through the motions of a diplomatic dialogue, as it often has in the past, to deflect pressure from international sanctions and temporarily defuse the nuclear standoff with Israel. But a "Grand Bargain" strategy is likely to result in endless "talks about talks" that will only enable Iran to buy time to run out the clock, as it completes a nuclear weapon.

Our Government

Have you heard this one?


"One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut.

After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I cannot
accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.'

The florist was pleased and left the shop.

When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop.

The next morning when the barber went to
open up, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.

The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it."

GM Takeover Foreshadowed by Calvin & Hobbes

This particular cartoon was created over 15 years ago. It comes pretty close to what's happening with GM, don't you think?