On this Veteran's Day I wanted to take a moment to say thank you to the men and women that are serving, and have served this great nation. Despite our differences, and we have many, we can express them without fear because of our servicemen and women. As I posted on my Facebook page
"I’ve experienced the euphoria of success, the depths of despair that comes with failure, experienced a child growing up and becoming an adult. This would not have been possible without God, and the members of the U.S. Military (past and present). Thank you and May God bless you and your loved ones."
It is unfortunate that this day of recognition doesn't have the same meaning, or treated with the same reverence as it was when I was a boy. It is not just a day off from work for many, or a day the banks and courts are closed, it is a time to say thank you to those that served this country (in spite of all its faults). More importantly, it is a time to reflect on the sacrifice of those that died in service of this country / you and me.
We're not allowed to say a prayer at the beginning of the school day; some don't even say the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the words "under God". We don't do those things because some have argued to the Supreme Court that this country should ignore the words as written, instead we should conduct ourselves in accordance with how some have interpreted the meaning of the words.
To those people and to those that hate our service men and women and protest at their funerals I have a thought for you. If it wasn't for the men and women that serve (and have served) in the U.S. military you wouldn't have the luxury to publicly express those thoughts, or to insult their memory and intrude upon their family's grief. Maybe for a moment, just sixty (60) seconds, you could stop and say thank you.
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
I have posted the video below; it is online as a tribute to our veterans. One thing I remember growing up was that those adults that had served had a rivalry amongst the various branches, they would criticize one another and share put downs. However, don't you dare do it because they would come to their comrade’s defense in a heartbeat? Despite all the back and forth you could tell that they respected one another and that is demonstrated in the video.
About Me
.JPEG)
- James N. Mann
- I retired after completing 38 years as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. I began my law enforcement career with the City of Miami, where I served for nearly 27 years before serving with a state agency for 11 1/2 years (part of that time as Interim Inspector General). During my career with Miami I worked in uniform patrol, the detective bureau, and the 911 center. I was also a member of the first law enforcement crew to respond to New York City on September 11, 2001. From January 2007 to April 2011 I also served as a commissioner on the state commission that governs the certification of law enforcement, correctional and probation officers in the state. I am a Past President of the Florida State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police (President 2004-2006); I was an employee representative with Miami FOP Lodge #20 for almost 21 years (6 years serving at the Chief Steward). I have worked on legislative issues at all levels, worked on political screening committees. I’m a past member of the Dade County Republican Executive Committee, and have been an advisor/ law enforcement liaison for a presidential candidate..
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Muslim Police in Britain
Britain is considered by a lot of people to be such a wonderful place; it is one of the Great Civilizations. A lot of things were incorporated into this country when the United States was formed, however, Britain should have learned from our history and the Civil Rights movement.
This is disgusting, if you want to be a bigot then turn in your badge. There are things we all have to do that we may not like but we don’t pick and choose who is deserving of protection under the law. What about the non Muslim officers that protected Muslims after 9/11 when some wanted to take out their anger on Muslims or people they perceived as being Muslim. What about those that had to protect people with AIDS in the mid 1980’s when that disease was first diagnosed and some wanted to attack them because of fear.
Just think of the Pandora’s Box that will be opened if this comes to the United States. We, my brothers and sisters in law enforcement, continuously work to keep bigots and haters out of our profession. If this decision to allow an officer to pick and choose who they will protect and help becomes the standard here, as it apparently has in Britain, we will be right back to southern law enforcement prior to the late 60’s, only worse! When I need help I want to be able to dial 911 and have an officer dispatched, I don’t need a bunch of questions about my race, religion, sexual preference, etc before help is sent. I don’t want a catholic cop, or a white cop, or a heterosexual cop, or a male cop, I WANT A COP period/ end of story!!!!!!!!!!
Nearly thirty years ago I took an oath to enforce the law equally with all, without any regard for my personal feelings. If I couldn’t do that, of if I ever get to the point that I can’t in the future then I need to do something else with my life. It’s bad enough that we are getting a version of their healthcare system just as Britain is moving away from it and to a system more like the United States system pre “Obama Care”. If this is allowed to stand, and become the norm, they can keep their bigoted law enforcement on that side of the Atlantic.
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
Friday, September 10, 2010
Do We Really Hate Negative Politics?
I've lived in Florida for thirty eight (38) years, have been registered to vote for the past Thirty five (35) and this seemed to have been one of the nattiest political seasons I can remember. When asked people will say that they hate the nasty attack ads, after all this is the politically correct answer but is it true?
If asked if it is true that we hate nasty attack ads, my answer to that question is a resounding NO! By the same token politicians will tell you that they don't like attack ads, they're different, and they are going to run a positive campaign. Watch how long that will last, if a politician wants to win eventually they will have to run a counter ad. It is unfortunate but people have the same philosophy about politicians as they do about defendants when serving on a jury, if the politician doesn’t respond and deny the attack then it must be true (just as if a defendant doesn’t testify on their own behalf they must be guilty).
It sort of reminds me of the 2000 Presidential Election. It seemed as if when asked everyone said that they did not vote for George W. Bush, yet he was elected. Before you Gore supporters, or Bush haters jump on your soap box and start fighting that election again my point is votes were cast for G.W. despite the massive denials to the contrary (this was proved by the Miami Herald and their news partners that spent over a quarter of a million dollars to have all Florida ballots counted, even the “hanging chads”).
I began drafting this post following the Florida Primary Elections in August, but then decided to wait realizing that the end hadn’t yet arrived. Since then the commercials for various campaigns have not let me down, they are nasty, distorting the truth, and planting the seed so that when someone attempts to correct the record the voters will heed the old adage “My mind’s made up don’t confuse me with facts.
If negative ads didn’t work politicians wouldn’t use them. These negative ads are great at what they are designed to do, which is not to point out what a bad person the opponent is, they are to distract the voters from my candidate’s problems, distract people so that I (the candidate) won’t be asked about issues until I have a survey tested response. They also keep the opponent from talking about the issues; it also causes voters to think that the opponent is desperate if they run an ad about what I’ve done wrong. Instead of questioning what I may have done or if there is any truth to what is being said they will feel sorry for me.
I don’t care how much good a person has done in public life, or how much good they have done in their current post (if they currently hold public office) if they try to run a positive campaign and not be the first to go negative they will not be elected.
If you think I’m wrong I have two words for you, Bill McCollum, he is not the Republican candidate for Governor in Florida. Don’t think that I’m just a Republican, or a McCollum supporter that is crying foul, the democrats are just as bad. Look at what is happening, accusations are made and when a reporter asks what proof the person has the response is can you prove I’m wrong (Face the Nation October 10, 2010).
I said that this is the nastiest campaign that I can remember, but it is not a recent phenomenon; it can be traced all the way back to the first elections in this country. The only difference is now it’s the internet instead of a pamphlet. If that’s going too far back, how about Al Smith? He was about to be elected President in 1928 until a few weeks before the election campaign material began talking about his being a Catholic, or LBJ’s daisy ad against Barry Goldwater, or George H.W. Bush’s Willie Horton ad? You see it is not just Republican, not just Democrat, and not generational, it’s all of us.
How can this be stopped, or can it be stopped? I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it, we are addicted to it, it is our drug of choice and we love the sensation!
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
If asked if it is true that we hate nasty attack ads, my answer to that question is a resounding NO! By the same token politicians will tell you that they don't like attack ads, they're different, and they are going to run a positive campaign. Watch how long that will last, if a politician wants to win eventually they will have to run a counter ad. It is unfortunate but people have the same philosophy about politicians as they do about defendants when serving on a jury, if the politician doesn’t respond and deny the attack then it must be true (just as if a defendant doesn’t testify on their own behalf they must be guilty).
It sort of reminds me of the 2000 Presidential Election. It seemed as if when asked everyone said that they did not vote for George W. Bush, yet he was elected. Before you Gore supporters, or Bush haters jump on your soap box and start fighting that election again my point is votes were cast for G.W. despite the massive denials to the contrary (this was proved by the Miami Herald and their news partners that spent over a quarter of a million dollars to have all Florida ballots counted, even the “hanging chads”).
I began drafting this post following the Florida Primary Elections in August, but then decided to wait realizing that the end hadn’t yet arrived. Since then the commercials for various campaigns have not let me down, they are nasty, distorting the truth, and planting the seed so that when someone attempts to correct the record the voters will heed the old adage “My mind’s made up don’t confuse me with facts.
If negative ads didn’t work politicians wouldn’t use them. These negative ads are great at what they are designed to do, which is not to point out what a bad person the opponent is, they are to distract the voters from my candidate’s problems, distract people so that I (the candidate) won’t be asked about issues until I have a survey tested response. They also keep the opponent from talking about the issues; it also causes voters to think that the opponent is desperate if they run an ad about what I’ve done wrong. Instead of questioning what I may have done or if there is any truth to what is being said they will feel sorry for me.
I don’t care how much good a person has done in public life, or how much good they have done in their current post (if they currently hold public office) if they try to run a positive campaign and not be the first to go negative they will not be elected.
If you think I’m wrong I have two words for you, Bill McCollum, he is not the Republican candidate for Governor in Florida. Don’t think that I’m just a Republican, or a McCollum supporter that is crying foul, the democrats are just as bad. Look at what is happening, accusations are made and when a reporter asks what proof the person has the response is can you prove I’m wrong (Face the Nation October 10, 2010).
I said that this is the nastiest campaign that I can remember, but it is not a recent phenomenon; it can be traced all the way back to the first elections in this country. The only difference is now it’s the internet instead of a pamphlet. If that’s going too far back, how about Al Smith? He was about to be elected President in 1928 until a few weeks before the election campaign material began talking about his being a Catholic, or LBJ’s daisy ad against Barry Goldwater, or George H.W. Bush’s Willie Horton ad? You see it is not just Republican, not just Democrat, and not generational, it’s all of us.
How can this be stopped, or can it be stopped? I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it, we are addicted to it, it is our drug of choice and we love the sensation!
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
Thursday, August 5, 2010
U.S. IMIGRATION POLICIES
When all the “outrage” began over Arizona’s proposed legislation, Senate Bill 1070, I read the bill. I saw a few minor issues with the legislation, but overall it was not the racist piece of legislation that some tried to make it.
As a matter of fact I was convinced that people hadn’t read it, really weren’t familiar with the U.S. Immigration Policy, just didn’t care what it said as long as they got their 15 minutes in the spot light, some might even be bigots. Then when SB 1070 was amended and passed I read it again. A friend had suggested, and I was considering writing about SB1070, but I doubt that this article is going to be what one might expect.
I have lived in Florida since 1972 and since 1979 I’ve been of the opinion that the U.S. Immigration policy needs a major overhaul. Regardless if it was intended to be or not, U.S. policy is discriminatory. I’m sure that some are thinking that I am being too harsh, or over reacting to a few isolated incidents. My response would be, come live in South Florida for a while and witness it firsthand.
The Arizona law really isn’t necessary in Florida, several law enforcement officers that I know and work with agree. We already have the ability to do what that law is trying to enact. The only other thing is that SB1070 would officially outlaw these “sanctuary cities” and allow a person to file a civil action pertaining to such cities.
Dictionary.com defines discrimination as;
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
As far as the Immigration policy being discriminating, if you think I’m wrong I would suggest that you look at the treatment of those fleeing Cuba and those fleeing Haiti. And don’t just look at recent events, go back decades.
Thirty (30) years ago as I was about to begin my law enforcement career a boat sank in the ocean east of Broward County Florida. Dozens of bodies began to wash ashore in the Deerfield Beach area; they were Haitians trying to come to America. In 1988 thirty three (33) Haitians drowned off the Broward County coast line, and there are many other incidents. Those that make it to shore are locked up in the Krome Detention Center (or other facility) and then deported back to Haiti. Until the earthquake earlier this year the U.S. Government has always declared the Haitians to be economic refugees. Even when they were fleeing a dictatorship to avoid being imprisoned or killed, they were shipped back.
Now look at those fleeing Cuba. Eventually in order to calm criticisms of the immigration policy being biased the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy was implemented by the U.S. Basically if someone flees Cuba and makes it ashore on U.S. land they are processed and released into the U.S. with benefits. Cubans are automatically fleeing repression and seeking freedom of expression. What’s the difference between the regime of Fidel and Raul Castro in Cuba and those of François Duvalier (Papa Doc) or his son Jean-Claude Duvalier (Baby Doc) in Haiti? Then there is the violence in Haiti since the Duvalier regimes ended.
Rather than cite instance upon instance I’ll just mention two more, Livan Hernandez and Elian Gonzalez! Hernandez is perhaps the most blatant example. Hernandez (and his brother) were Cuban baseball stars, when Livan defected to the U.S. he held a press conference. At the press conference he said that he defected to the U.S. because he wanted to play Major League Baseball and make lots of money! He wasn’t afraid that Castro was going to kill him, or imprison him; he wanted to make big bucks playing MLB. Now if that isn’t an economic refugee please explain to me what is?
I’m sure that most people are aware of the saga of Elian Gonzalez; it was a huge headache for the Clinton Administration during its last year. Elian, his mother, her boyfriend (later it was determined that he was actually a smuggler bringing people to the U.S.), and others were on a boat that sank trying to make it to the U.S. Elian, who was six at the time, was the only one found alive on Thanksgiving 1999. He was rescued by fishermen and taken to a Miami hospital. Once he recovered he was released to relatives in Miami. That would have been the end of the story had Elian’s father not insisted that his son be returned to him in Cuba. Speaking of a biased policy, if it had been Elian's father that had drowned and his mother alive and insisting he be returned I seriously doubt it would have taken from Thanksgiving to the morning before Easter for the U.S. to send Elian back.
Days before Elian was rescued there was a similar incident involving a Haitian mother and her two small children. They were rescued and the mother had to be hospitalized, the two children weren’t even allowed to remain in the U.S. until mother’s health had stabilized. While mother was in the hospital these children were taken from her and transported back to Haiti. What about humanitarian grounds, at the very least allow them to stay here with mother until she was discharged from the hospital. It wasn’t until Congressman Alcee Hasting got on the Floor of the House of Representatives and protested how outrageous this was that the Federal Government asked the Haitian Government to find the children and send them back to be with their mother.
Although it may sound like it I am not against the immigration of Cubans, just some semblance of fairness by treating other nationalities the same.
I said that some of those that are protesting against the Arizona law could be protesting because they are bigots.
<em>Dictionary.com defines bigot as;–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
How many buses have you seen caravanning from California to Miami to protest the treatment of Haitians seeking a better life in the U.S.? Do they only care about Mexicans being able to come to this country rather than seeking a fair immigration policy for all? Mexicans are also people of color, however, I haven’t seen as many with the same pigmentation or French Creole accent as those fleeing Haiti. Perhaps in addition to our system being blind it should also be deaf.
THAT’S MY OPINION (the grandson of immigrants), WHATS YOURS
As a matter of fact I was convinced that people hadn’t read it, really weren’t familiar with the U.S. Immigration Policy, just didn’t care what it said as long as they got their 15 minutes in the spot light, some might even be bigots. Then when SB 1070 was amended and passed I read it again. A friend had suggested, and I was considering writing about SB1070, but I doubt that this article is going to be what one might expect.
I have lived in Florida since 1972 and since 1979 I’ve been of the opinion that the U.S. Immigration policy needs a major overhaul. Regardless if it was intended to be or not, U.S. policy is discriminatory. I’m sure that some are thinking that I am being too harsh, or over reacting to a few isolated incidents. My response would be, come live in South Florida for a while and witness it firsthand.
The Arizona law really isn’t necessary in Florida, several law enforcement officers that I know and work with agree. We already have the ability to do what that law is trying to enact. The only other thing is that SB1070 would officially outlaw these “sanctuary cities” and allow a person to file a civil action pertaining to such cities.
Dictionary.com defines discrimination as;
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
As far as the Immigration policy being discriminating, if you think I’m wrong I would suggest that you look at the treatment of those fleeing Cuba and those fleeing Haiti. And don’t just look at recent events, go back decades.
Thirty (30) years ago as I was about to begin my law enforcement career a boat sank in the ocean east of Broward County Florida. Dozens of bodies began to wash ashore in the Deerfield Beach area; they were Haitians trying to come to America. In 1988 thirty three (33) Haitians drowned off the Broward County coast line, and there are many other incidents. Those that make it to shore are locked up in the Krome Detention Center (or other facility) and then deported back to Haiti. Until the earthquake earlier this year the U.S. Government has always declared the Haitians to be economic refugees. Even when they were fleeing a dictatorship to avoid being imprisoned or killed, they were shipped back.
Now look at those fleeing Cuba. Eventually in order to calm criticisms of the immigration policy being biased the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy was implemented by the U.S. Basically if someone flees Cuba and makes it ashore on U.S. land they are processed and released into the U.S. with benefits. Cubans are automatically fleeing repression and seeking freedom of expression. What’s the difference between the regime of Fidel and Raul Castro in Cuba and those of François Duvalier (Papa Doc) or his son Jean-Claude Duvalier (Baby Doc) in Haiti? Then there is the violence in Haiti since the Duvalier regimes ended.
Rather than cite instance upon instance I’ll just mention two more, Livan Hernandez and Elian Gonzalez! Hernandez is perhaps the most blatant example. Hernandez (and his brother) were Cuban baseball stars, when Livan defected to the U.S. he held a press conference. At the press conference he said that he defected to the U.S. because he wanted to play Major League Baseball and make lots of money! He wasn’t afraid that Castro was going to kill him, or imprison him; he wanted to make big bucks playing MLB. Now if that isn’t an economic refugee please explain to me what is?
I’m sure that most people are aware of the saga of Elian Gonzalez; it was a huge headache for the Clinton Administration during its last year. Elian, his mother, her boyfriend (later it was determined that he was actually a smuggler bringing people to the U.S.), and others were on a boat that sank trying to make it to the U.S. Elian, who was six at the time, was the only one found alive on Thanksgiving 1999. He was rescued by fishermen and taken to a Miami hospital. Once he recovered he was released to relatives in Miami. That would have been the end of the story had Elian’s father not insisted that his son be returned to him in Cuba. Speaking of a biased policy, if it had been Elian's father that had drowned and his mother alive and insisting he be returned I seriously doubt it would have taken from Thanksgiving to the morning before Easter for the U.S. to send Elian back.
Days before Elian was rescued there was a similar incident involving a Haitian mother and her two small children. They were rescued and the mother had to be hospitalized, the two children weren’t even allowed to remain in the U.S. until mother’s health had stabilized. While mother was in the hospital these children were taken from her and transported back to Haiti. What about humanitarian grounds, at the very least allow them to stay here with mother until she was discharged from the hospital. It wasn’t until Congressman Alcee Hasting got on the Floor of the House of Representatives and protested how outrageous this was that the Federal Government asked the Haitian Government to find the children and send them back to be with their mother.
Although it may sound like it I am not against the immigration of Cubans, just some semblance of fairness by treating other nationalities the same.
I said that some of those that are protesting against the Arizona law could be protesting because they are bigots.
<em>Dictionary.com defines bigot as;–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
How many buses have you seen caravanning from California to Miami to protest the treatment of Haitians seeking a better life in the U.S.? Do they only care about Mexicans being able to come to this country rather than seeking a fair immigration policy for all? Mexicans are also people of color, however, I haven’t seen as many with the same pigmentation or French Creole accent as those fleeing Haiti. Perhaps in addition to our system being blind it should also be deaf.
THAT’S MY OPINION (the grandson of immigrants), WHATS YOURS
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Presidential Time Off
The President has taken a few days and gone to Maine with his family and some are criticizing his choice to go to Maine, or his taking time at all.
I have a question, are people really that hard up to find fault with the President that they have to criticize his taking a few days with his family? At least he is spending time with his family. After all we elected a man with a wife and two young children, and if he didn’t take some personal time with his family people would criticize him for being a poor father. Besides is the President ever really “off” while in office, don’t we have ways of communicating such as telephones, cell phones, fax, satellite communications, internet, Air Force One (a “flying White House”), etc?
Let me take a moment to say thank you to the President for not choosing to go to the Gulf Coast for a few days with the family. The manpower commitment on the local and state levels (not to mention the federal level) for Presidential visits are enormous and would have to be increased to ensure the safety of the First Family. Those resources could be put to better use right now.
With the news this week that by 2014 the federal government will be requiring healthcare providers to report a person’s BMI (body mass index) to the government I would have thought I’d hear “outrage” over the First Family stopping for ice cream, after all they are all so obese.
I did see something in the video of the First Family during a visit to a National Park that I could criticize, but that has to do with the father not the President. And if I don’t want the federal government dictating how I interact with my children I shouldn’t try to do the same to the President. I’ve been critical of some of the President’s policies this past year and a half, and I’m sure during the next two and a half years I’ll have more to criticize (like the federal government's reaction to the Arizona Immigration Law) but this isn’t one of those things.
Maybe those that are doing the criticism right now need to take some time off themselves.
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
I have a question, are people really that hard up to find fault with the President that they have to criticize his taking a few days with his family? At least he is spending time with his family. After all we elected a man with a wife and two young children, and if he didn’t take some personal time with his family people would criticize him for being a poor father. Besides is the President ever really “off” while in office, don’t we have ways of communicating such as telephones, cell phones, fax, satellite communications, internet, Air Force One (a “flying White House”), etc?
Let me take a moment to say thank you to the President for not choosing to go to the Gulf Coast for a few days with the family. The manpower commitment on the local and state levels (not to mention the federal level) for Presidential visits are enormous and would have to be increased to ensure the safety of the First Family. Those resources could be put to better use right now.
With the news this week that by 2014 the federal government will be requiring healthcare providers to report a person’s BMI (body mass index) to the government I would have thought I’d hear “outrage” over the First Family stopping for ice cream, after all they are all so obese.
I did see something in the video of the First Family during a visit to a National Park that I could criticize, but that has to do with the father not the President. And if I don’t want the federal government dictating how I interact with my children I shouldn’t try to do the same to the President. I’ve been critical of some of the President’s policies this past year and a half, and I’m sure during the next two and a half years I’ll have more to criticize (like the federal government's reaction to the Arizona Immigration Law) but this isn’t one of those things.
Maybe those that are doing the criticism right now need to take some time off themselves.
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Response to Disasters
Isn’t it amazing how “we” have a need to blame a person, or political party, we don’t like for something that has gone wrong regardless if the blame is deserving. Are “we” that insecure that we have to make ourselves feel better by “tearing” down another (or at least their reputation)?
Democrats were relentless in their attacks on George W. Bush and Republicans following Hurricane Katrina (some criticism was justified but not most), yet seemed to ignore the democrats in power at the local and state levels that refused to activate their emergency evacuation plans, or to even declare a state of emergency that would have allowed more of a federal response sooner. People also seemed to suffer amnesia about the fortifications and improvements that had been paid for not being done.
Oh, don’t get defensive; the Republicans aren’t squeaky clean in this area either. You have the current disaster in the Gulf, then there is Three Mile Island, Exxon Valdez, I could go on and on for both parties. While Oil continues to gush out at anywhere from 5,000 to 40,000 barrels per day Congress is holding hearings. People have to take time away from trying to figure out how to stop this in order to travel to Washington so Congress can have a photo op. Oh, and while we’re at it lets crash BP stock value. I’m not siding with BP, but if you expect the company to pay for the cleanup, for stopping the “leak”, for the economic impact to companies, communities, individuals, BP has to remain solvent (no pun intended).
I have a novel concept; put the blame where it belongs. However, fix the problem first so it won’t happen again! You would think that the government would learn from the past and correct problems regarding the response to emergencies and disasters, but they still screw up! Sorry but there is no other way to describe it, if the government were a person he/ she would have been diagnosed as being ADD and put on medication a long time ago. Had there been the internet, Blogs, YouTube, and 24 hour cable news when the Exxon Valdez occurred I bet the public outcry would have been even greater.
As I mentioned in my previous posting I think a part of the problem is career politicians, and that is a shame because they should be able to point to the “Fed” response to disasters as a shining example of why we need to have a career/ experienced Congressman or woman. Instead people are able to use it as a glaring example of what’s wrong, or how having career politicians is a detriment to public safety. Since twenty years (20) seems to be a “bench mark” that is commonly used, let me use that time period to illustrate my point. Instead of making an all inclusive list I’m only going to talk about those events that I’ve been affected by, or involved in personally with the exception of the current Oil Spill/ disaster taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.
Hurricane Andrew At the time it was the worst storm to affect the U.S. since tracking had begun. I was working for the Miami Police Department at the time and had family and friends living in the southern part of Dade County (now Miami-Dade County). Private industry responded much quicker than government. After the first couple of days when it was apparent that governments (Federal and state) weren’t reacting to the aftermath and devastation, law enforcement officers from around the country volunteered and came down to help (they worried about their entity approving after the fact). When the government finally reacted, Army Airborne and National Guard troops were sent to help patrol the area. Other branches eventually set up flights to move materials and equipment into the area. However, the beauocracy was such that curfews, roadblocks, checkpoints and curfews were in place until after the New Year.
9/11 Terror Attacks First let me say something positive, I was impressed as I watched the endless line of aircraft approaching to land at Miami International Airport. They kept coming in one immediately after the other, we commented that a pilot better not slow down or hesitate once his wheels touched down or else he/ she would have another aircraft run them over.
Also, for those that like to criticize government employees and the “unions”, this part is for you.
When the attacks occurred, many police departments, like Miami PD, contacted NYPD and offered help. They were told that no help was needed (NYPD seemed indignant that others would think they needed help). Some of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) officers contacted the New York State Lodge to see if they needed help and to let them know what NYPD’s response was to the offers. The NY FOP people called NYPD, the governor, and others and expressed what they thought of the attitude and refusal of help. Within hours NYPD apologized, admitted that the situation was more than they could handle alone and welcomed help.
Those government, public employee union people that it is so fashionable to criticize now responded to New York and D.C. to help. They went on their own; using personal time rather than wait for some bureaurocrat to make a decision, and not worrying about if their entity would cover them if they got injured. All they knew was that people, citizens and fellow emergency service brethren needed help.
As far as the first crew from Miami were concerned it was time to pay back NYPD for their help after Hurricane Andrew. NYPD people and the NY FOP were among the first to respond to us after Andrew, they came with food, clothing, construction supplies, and the determination to stand posts and go on patrol so we could get some rest and care for our families. One final thought about those that responded to 9/11, despite the health issues that many are suffering that have been linked to their being in NY or at Ground Zero, I have yet to meet anyone that would not respond all over again even knowing what they do now.
Then there was Hurricane Katrina and the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. You would have thought that “we” had learned and stopped publicizing these disasters, that we would respond first, help those in need and then afterwards determine the true cause and deal with it. However, we still have to place blame immediately, even before we have any facts to support our position. Like the old saying “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”
When disasters occur our politicians just about kill each other trying to get in front of the TV cameras first. There are so many times and situations in which people can honestly (and justly) blame one party or the other, disasters should be one of those situations in which the politics takes a break. We’re never going to get any better at responding if we keep using the opportunity to verbally attack our opponents.
Give me a politician that will respond immediately, ensure that the damage is fixed and those in need and injured are taken care of. Then do a true fact finding investigation to learn the truth before placing blame without worrying if he had a good “sound bite” for the news, give me that and I’ll vote for that person for as long as they want to run.
The government’s response to disasters is a good reason for term limits. Yeah, you will lose experience, but what good has experience done us so far, has it stopped the spread of the oil into the marshes and wetlands? Maybe what we lose in experience will be overcome by a desire to care for our fellow citizen without concern for how we can profit. I’m to the point where enthusiasm and desire to do what is right, to employ the Golden Rule, is WAY MORE appealing than experience.
That’s My Opinion, What’s Yours
Democrats were relentless in their attacks on George W. Bush and Republicans following Hurricane Katrina (some criticism was justified but not most), yet seemed to ignore the democrats in power at the local and state levels that refused to activate their emergency evacuation plans, or to even declare a state of emergency that would have allowed more of a federal response sooner. People also seemed to suffer amnesia about the fortifications and improvements that had been paid for not being done.
Oh, don’t get defensive; the Republicans aren’t squeaky clean in this area either. You have the current disaster in the Gulf, then there is Three Mile Island, Exxon Valdez, I could go on and on for both parties. While Oil continues to gush out at anywhere from 5,000 to 40,000 barrels per day Congress is holding hearings. People have to take time away from trying to figure out how to stop this in order to travel to Washington so Congress can have a photo op. Oh, and while we’re at it lets crash BP stock value. I’m not siding with BP, but if you expect the company to pay for the cleanup, for stopping the “leak”, for the economic impact to companies, communities, individuals, BP has to remain solvent (no pun intended).
I have a novel concept; put the blame where it belongs. However, fix the problem first so it won’t happen again! You would think that the government would learn from the past and correct problems regarding the response to emergencies and disasters, but they still screw up! Sorry but there is no other way to describe it, if the government were a person he/ she would have been diagnosed as being ADD and put on medication a long time ago. Had there been the internet, Blogs, YouTube, and 24 hour cable news when the Exxon Valdez occurred I bet the public outcry would have been even greater.
As I mentioned in my previous posting I think a part of the problem is career politicians, and that is a shame because they should be able to point to the “Fed” response to disasters as a shining example of why we need to have a career/ experienced Congressman or woman. Instead people are able to use it as a glaring example of what’s wrong, or how having career politicians is a detriment to public safety. Since twenty years (20) seems to be a “bench mark” that is commonly used, let me use that time period to illustrate my point. Instead of making an all inclusive list I’m only going to talk about those events that I’ve been affected by, or involved in personally with the exception of the current Oil Spill/ disaster taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.
Hurricane Andrew At the time it was the worst storm to affect the U.S. since tracking had begun. I was working for the Miami Police Department at the time and had family and friends living in the southern part of Dade County (now Miami-Dade County). Private industry responded much quicker than government. After the first couple of days when it was apparent that governments (Federal and state) weren’t reacting to the aftermath and devastation, law enforcement officers from around the country volunteered and came down to help (they worried about their entity approving after the fact). When the government finally reacted, Army Airborne and National Guard troops were sent to help patrol the area. Other branches eventually set up flights to move materials and equipment into the area. However, the beauocracy was such that curfews, roadblocks, checkpoints and curfews were in place until after the New Year.
9/11 Terror Attacks First let me say something positive, I was impressed as I watched the endless line of aircraft approaching to land at Miami International Airport. They kept coming in one immediately after the other, we commented that a pilot better not slow down or hesitate once his wheels touched down or else he/ she would have another aircraft run them over.
Also, for those that like to criticize government employees and the “unions”, this part is for you.
When the attacks occurred, many police departments, like Miami PD, contacted NYPD and offered help. They were told that no help was needed (NYPD seemed indignant that others would think they needed help). Some of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) officers contacted the New York State Lodge to see if they needed help and to let them know what NYPD’s response was to the offers. The NY FOP people called NYPD, the governor, and others and expressed what they thought of the attitude and refusal of help. Within hours NYPD apologized, admitted that the situation was more than they could handle alone and welcomed help.
Those government, public employee union people that it is so fashionable to criticize now responded to New York and D.C. to help. They went on their own; using personal time rather than wait for some bureaurocrat to make a decision, and not worrying about if their entity would cover them if they got injured. All they knew was that people, citizens and fellow emergency service brethren needed help.
As far as the first crew from Miami were concerned it was time to pay back NYPD for their help after Hurricane Andrew. NYPD people and the NY FOP were among the first to respond to us after Andrew, they came with food, clothing, construction supplies, and the determination to stand posts and go on patrol so we could get some rest and care for our families. One final thought about those that responded to 9/11, despite the health issues that many are suffering that have been linked to their being in NY or at Ground Zero, I have yet to meet anyone that would not respond all over again even knowing what they do now.
Then there was Hurricane Katrina and the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. You would have thought that “we” had learned and stopped publicizing these disasters, that we would respond first, help those in need and then afterwards determine the true cause and deal with it. However, we still have to place blame immediately, even before we have any facts to support our position. Like the old saying “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”
When disasters occur our politicians just about kill each other trying to get in front of the TV cameras first. There are so many times and situations in which people can honestly (and justly) blame one party or the other, disasters should be one of those situations in which the politics takes a break. We’re never going to get any better at responding if we keep using the opportunity to verbally attack our opponents.
Give me a politician that will respond immediately, ensure that the damage is fixed and those in need and injured are taken care of. Then do a true fact finding investigation to learn the truth before placing blame without worrying if he had a good “sound bite” for the news, give me that and I’ll vote for that person for as long as they want to run.
The government’s response to disasters is a good reason for term limits. Yeah, you will lose experience, but what good has experience done us so far, has it stopped the spread of the oil into the marshes and wetlands? Maybe what we lose in experience will be overcome by a desire to care for our fellow citizen without concern for how we can profit. I’m to the point where enthusiasm and desire to do what is right, to employ the Golden Rule, is WAY MORE appealing than experience.
That’s My Opinion, What’s Yours
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Miscellaneous Rant
I’ve been trying to pick one topic to write about but there has been so many things that I’m just going to RANT for a minute. It will be my own form of therapy (since is seems that everyone has to go to therapy to be successful or to seek redemption for some transgression), and it’s a lot cheaper than throwing my coffee mug at the TV.
1.
Speaking of going into therapy and seeking redemption, I am WAY PAST being sick of hearing about Tiger Woods! First let me say that I don’t agree, approve, or condone what he did. Having said that, he is a human being and as I’m sure we all can admit human beings make mistakes. This is between him and his family, and in addition to Tiger being to blame, don’t we deserve a little blame? We as a society love to find someone with a talent who becomes a success at something, then we put them up on a pedestal and praise and emulate them. Once we’ve put them up on that pedestal, built up their ego and made them rich, we knock them down and pummel them. It is like a sport to us, but we’re not satisfied with that, then we have to drag their family through the mud as well. Don’t we also deserve a little of the blame treating celebrities’ as if they are a better class then we are, which inflates the ego even more and in some cases makes the person believe that they are allowed to do whatever they want because they’re special.
2.
Those of you that know me, or have been kind enough to follow my writings know that I have been a law enforcement officer for over 29 years. I’ve also been involved in one form or another in an organization representing law enforcement officer for 23 years. I’ve also been on the management side.
I have got to the point that I REALLY have to practice restraint and keep from throwing something at the TV, or ripping the radio out of the dashboard when I hear these “talking heads” and other so called experts start blaming government employees for the country’s economic situation, or generalizing about unions and saying that they are to blame for the economic woes! Those types of generalizations are the same as saying that reporters plagiarize and/ or fabricate the articles and books that they write.
While we’re at it why don’t we blame Al Gore for all the child pornography and child exploitation that is taking place, after all he once claimed to have invented the internet and a lot of these crimes are occurring via the internet. I’m going to write more about this later.
3.
If you believe the latest studies my life expectancy is approximately another 23 to 25 years. No matter how much time I have left I only hope I live long enough to see the day that George W. Bush and/ or Dick Chaney won’t be blamed for a current problem. OMG, ENOUGH ALREADY, PLEASE!!!!!! Now they’re being blamed for the Oil Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Federal Government’s response is another item that I will dedicate more time to, but do we have to politicize EVERYTHING? At this rate we’ll be blaming Benjamin Harrison, or maybe Zachary Taylor for the next problem or disaster! I’ve got a novel idea; fix the problem and then figure out who’s responsible! WOW, imagine what would happen if that was what occurred. People might actually have respect for, and confidence in the government again!
Along that line of thought, not all republicans are bad and not all democrats are good. There are good honest caring people in both. I believe a big part of the problem was demonstrated in some of the recent primaries when an incumbent that had been in Congress for over 20 years talked about his loss ending his political career. That’s the problem, Congress was not intended to be a career, the thought was that you go to Congress for a couple of years deal with some issues of concern to your area and then return to your life. You were supposed to have a profession other than Congress.
It is getting harder and harder for me to keep my breakfast down when I hear a member of Congress complaining about the pay and benefits government, or union workers receive. Let me ask you a question about your current job, can (or could) you retire after only working for six (6) years and receive a minimum pension or approximately $66,000.00 a year for the rest of your life as well as health insurance? If you said yes you are a member of Congress.
I seem to remember an old saying that everything old is new again. If that is the case I long for the day when personal responsibility is in fashion again.
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
1.
Speaking of going into therapy and seeking redemption, I am WAY PAST being sick of hearing about Tiger Woods! First let me say that I don’t agree, approve, or condone what he did. Having said that, he is a human being and as I’m sure we all can admit human beings make mistakes. This is between him and his family, and in addition to Tiger being to blame, don’t we deserve a little blame? We as a society love to find someone with a talent who becomes a success at something, then we put them up on a pedestal and praise and emulate them. Once we’ve put them up on that pedestal, built up their ego and made them rich, we knock them down and pummel them. It is like a sport to us, but we’re not satisfied with that, then we have to drag their family through the mud as well. Don’t we also deserve a little of the blame treating celebrities’ as if they are a better class then we are, which inflates the ego even more and in some cases makes the person believe that they are allowed to do whatever they want because they’re special.
2.
Those of you that know me, or have been kind enough to follow my writings know that I have been a law enforcement officer for over 29 years. I’ve also been involved in one form or another in an organization representing law enforcement officer for 23 years. I’ve also been on the management side.
I have got to the point that I REALLY have to practice restraint and keep from throwing something at the TV, or ripping the radio out of the dashboard when I hear these “talking heads” and other so called experts start blaming government employees for the country’s economic situation, or generalizing about unions and saying that they are to blame for the economic woes! Those types of generalizations are the same as saying that reporters plagiarize and/ or fabricate the articles and books that they write.
While we’re at it why don’t we blame Al Gore for all the child pornography and child exploitation that is taking place, after all he once claimed to have invented the internet and a lot of these crimes are occurring via the internet. I’m going to write more about this later.
3.
If you believe the latest studies my life expectancy is approximately another 23 to 25 years. No matter how much time I have left I only hope I live long enough to see the day that George W. Bush and/ or Dick Chaney won’t be blamed for a current problem. OMG, ENOUGH ALREADY, PLEASE!!!!!! Now they’re being blamed for the Oil Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Federal Government’s response is another item that I will dedicate more time to, but do we have to politicize EVERYTHING? At this rate we’ll be blaming Benjamin Harrison, or maybe Zachary Taylor for the next problem or disaster! I’ve got a novel idea; fix the problem and then figure out who’s responsible! WOW, imagine what would happen if that was what occurred. People might actually have respect for, and confidence in the government again!
Along that line of thought, not all republicans are bad and not all democrats are good. There are good honest caring people in both. I believe a big part of the problem was demonstrated in some of the recent primaries when an incumbent that had been in Congress for over 20 years talked about his loss ending his political career. That’s the problem, Congress was not intended to be a career, the thought was that you go to Congress for a couple of years deal with some issues of concern to your area and then return to your life. You were supposed to have a profession other than Congress.
It is getting harder and harder for me to keep my breakfast down when I hear a member of Congress complaining about the pay and benefits government, or union workers receive. Let me ask you a question about your current job, can (or could) you retire after only working for six (6) years and receive a minimum pension or approximately $66,000.00 a year for the rest of your life as well as health insurance? If you said yes you are a member of Congress.
I seem to remember an old saying that everything old is new again. If that is the case I long for the day when personal responsibility is in fashion again.
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Health Care and the Constitution
(In my posting last night I said that I was going to do a posting that included a few topics, however, as I was writing this section I realized that to do so would make the posting way too long. I decided to post this section on its own after all)
First let me say that I am not going to express an opinion about the lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General from several states challenging the constitutionality of the legislation. And, I’m not going to talk about what is right or wrong with it, been down that road a couple of times. What I am going to say is that I would have expected the Administration to do a better job of selling the legislation and making a better defense of its legitimacy. They had a great opportunity to argue the legality under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and never took advantage; I also thought they might have after one of the Vice President’s gaffs.
I’ve written about how I felt that the President’s advisors ran a great campaign, but haven’t adjusted from campaigning to governing and should be replaced. This entire Healthcare Reform/ Overhaul (whatever the catch phrase of the week is) proves again that they are too set in on a course of action and aren’t able to adjust to circumstances, and need to be replaced.
Think back to last year, what happened during the time that Healthcare was going on in Congress? A year ago there was the first recorded human death from H1N1 (“swine”) flu. As the year progressed H1N1 spread throughout the world and became an epidemic, then pandemic. I told a friend back then that if I was in the Administration I’d use H1N1 to justify the need for and legitimacy of the legislation.
I would have argued that Healthcare was needed, and should be enacted because of the potential impact on the U.S. economy. Because of the amount of travel, and easy accessibility of travel, it is extremely easy for an infected person to travel throughout the country (and world). Many of the local economies are dependent on tourist and business travel. A sick person traveling to a metropolitan area, especially one dependent on travel/ tourist industry, could have a devastating impact on that local economy. This would then spread to the state and national economy. Mandatory Health Care legislation is necessary to ensure that citizens have the access and ability to receive quality care when they are sick, which in turn would help to minimize the impact on the economy from an epidemic or pandemic like H1N1.
I imagine that some of you are reading this and thinking “Oh come on, that’s a real stretch!” Do you think I’ve lost grasp of reality, or am REALLY “grasping at straws” to justify Health Care. If you are one of those that think so, I have two words to say to you, Roscoe Filburn. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases that have impacted the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Roscoe Filburn I am referring to is from the U.S. Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.
Rather than recounting for you a case history, let me share with you a general description of the case from a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In his book The Supreme Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, gave a general description of the case as this; (pgs 141-142) “Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who raised a small amount of wheat but never sold any of it. he used the wheat for feed and seed on his own farm.” He continued “Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, explained that had Filburn not used the wheat himself, he would have had to buy wheat from some other producer who was “in commerce.” However indirect, his consumption of his own wheat had an effect on commerce, and could be regulated by Congress.”
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano also discusses this case in his book The CONSTITUTION in EXILE (How the Federal Government has SEIZED POWER by REWRITING the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND).
If the actions of a farmer, growing 23 acres of wheat (Roscoe Filburn), when the law said he could only grow 11.1 acres, for use and consumption on his property can be ruled illegal because had he not grown the wheat he would have had to purchase it from someone else, do you really believe that an argument can’t be made for the possible impact on commerce if someone without Health Insurance became ill with H1N1? Also, during this time Vice President Biden said in an interview that he would, and had, told members of his family and friends not to travel in confined spaces because of the possibility of getting sick.
We’ll see what arguments the U.S. Government makes in response to the lawsuit filed by several states. However, this should never have become the major mess that it has, having advisors with experience on a federal level and the willingness to listen and work with people could have helped lesson the severity of the negative response to this legislation (provided the person their advising is willing to listen to them).
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
First let me say that I am not going to express an opinion about the lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General from several states challenging the constitutionality of the legislation. And, I’m not going to talk about what is right or wrong with it, been down that road a couple of times. What I am going to say is that I would have expected the Administration to do a better job of selling the legislation and making a better defense of its legitimacy. They had a great opportunity to argue the legality under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and never took advantage; I also thought they might have after one of the Vice President’s gaffs.
I’ve written about how I felt that the President’s advisors ran a great campaign, but haven’t adjusted from campaigning to governing and should be replaced. This entire Healthcare Reform/ Overhaul (whatever the catch phrase of the week is) proves again that they are too set in on a course of action and aren’t able to adjust to circumstances, and need to be replaced.
Think back to last year, what happened during the time that Healthcare was going on in Congress? A year ago there was the first recorded human death from H1N1 (“swine”) flu. As the year progressed H1N1 spread throughout the world and became an epidemic, then pandemic. I told a friend back then that if I was in the Administration I’d use H1N1 to justify the need for and legitimacy of the legislation.
I would have argued that Healthcare was needed, and should be enacted because of the potential impact on the U.S. economy. Because of the amount of travel, and easy accessibility of travel, it is extremely easy for an infected person to travel throughout the country (and world). Many of the local economies are dependent on tourist and business travel. A sick person traveling to a metropolitan area, especially one dependent on travel/ tourist industry, could have a devastating impact on that local economy. This would then spread to the state and national economy. Mandatory Health Care legislation is necessary to ensure that citizens have the access and ability to receive quality care when they are sick, which in turn would help to minimize the impact on the economy from an epidemic or pandemic like H1N1.
I imagine that some of you are reading this and thinking “Oh come on, that’s a real stretch!” Do you think I’ve lost grasp of reality, or am REALLY “grasping at straws” to justify Health Care. If you are one of those that think so, I have two words to say to you, Roscoe Filburn. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases that have impacted the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Roscoe Filburn I am referring to is from the U.S. Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.
Rather than recounting for you a case history, let me share with you a general description of the case from a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In his book The Supreme Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, gave a general description of the case as this; (pgs 141-142) “Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who raised a small amount of wheat but never sold any of it. he used the wheat for feed and seed on his own farm.” He continued “Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, explained that had Filburn not used the wheat himself, he would have had to buy wheat from some other producer who was “in commerce.” However indirect, his consumption of his own wheat had an effect on commerce, and could be regulated by Congress.”
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano also discusses this case in his book The CONSTITUTION in EXILE (How the Federal Government has SEIZED POWER by REWRITING the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND).
If the actions of a farmer, growing 23 acres of wheat (Roscoe Filburn), when the law said he could only grow 11.1 acres, for use and consumption on his property can be ruled illegal because had he not grown the wheat he would have had to purchase it from someone else, do you really believe that an argument can’t be made for the possible impact on commerce if someone without Health Insurance became ill with H1N1? Also, during this time Vice President Biden said in an interview that he would, and had, told members of his family and friends not to travel in confined spaces because of the possibility of getting sick.
We’ll see what arguments the U.S. Government makes in response to the lawsuit filed by several states. However, this should never have become the major mess that it has, having advisors with experience on a federal level and the willingness to listen and work with people could have helped lesson the severity of the negative response to this legislation (provided the person their advising is willing to listen to them).
THAT’S MY OPINION, WHAT’S YOURS
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
No, I haven't Quit, I'm back!
I know it's been awhile since my last posting (nearly three months), I'm drafting a new post and it should be up in the next day or so.
Since it's been so long this new post will be a bit of a "Pot Luck", I thought I'd cover a couple of different thoughts instead of my usual single topic post.
As always, I've appreciated the feedback and the suggestions for topics. The only reason I hadn't taken the challenge to write about the suggestions is I didn't feel I would be able to devote the time to do it justice.
I hope everyone's first quarter of the year has been a positive and productive one. In the words of Douglas MacArthur "I shall return", or the Governor of California "I'll be back" (in a day or two).
Since it's been so long this new post will be a bit of a "Pot Luck", I thought I'd cover a couple of different thoughts instead of my usual single topic post.
As always, I've appreciated the feedback and the suggestions for topics. The only reason I hadn't taken the challenge to write about the suggestions is I didn't feel I would be able to devote the time to do it justice.
I hope everyone's first quarter of the year has been a positive and productive one. In the words of Douglas MacArthur "I shall return", or the Governor of California "I'll be back" (in a day or two).
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
TIME FOR A CHANGE!
When he was running for President, Barack Obama adopted the slogan “CHANGE”; it’s time for a change! Well last night CHANGE came to Massachusetts. Scott Brown was elected to succeed the late Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, a seat that has been held by a democrat for over 50 years will now be held by a Republican.
The political pundits are talking about the message this election has sent to the established political machines, the public is fed up with this, or they don’t like that, etc. A few have touched on what I believe the real message is; if you don’t know history, if you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.
President Obama is an intelligent man; he has been a professor, why has he allowed the Democrats to repeat their mistakes of the past? Will he lead the Democratic Party to recover from this defeat in Mass. and avoid major losses in the midterm elections (repeating the outcome of the 1994 midterm elections)?
Let me address the last two points first. Will he, or maybe more appropriate, can he lead the “Dem’s" to avoid major losses? I’m not sure. When you look at his political history (as short as it is), his campaigns would take steps to disqualify and discredit opponents in order to avoid direct competition in a general election. Until Hillary Clinton, he hadn’t faced a real challenge in his political career.
In the case of Secretary Clinton, President Obama was smart. He got into an election that she (and most “Dem’s”) thought was hers, that it was her time, payback for standing by Bill. The attitude of entitlement caused her to not expect, or prepare for a serious challenge. It also caused her to not use President Clinton sooner; she wanted to show that she was her own person. She should have used Bill from the start, rode those coat tails back to Pennsylvania Avenue and then prove to her detractors that she was her own person and qualified. President Obama was able to capitalize on Secretary Clinton (and her campaign) not preparing for a serious challenge, as well as the fact that he hadn’t been in the Congress long enough to establish a voting record that could hurt him.
President Obama displayed his intellegance again once he was elected when he appointed Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. That limited her ability to attack him on foreign affairs should she choose to run against him in 2012, she could not attack him without tainting herself. This act also curtailed Bill’s activities and influence on the path the Democratic Party took.
President Obama was also able to limit the influence of some of the traditional leadership of the African-American community. When he first announced there were comments that he wasn’t black enough. Now these people are out there publicly supporting him, no matter what he does, and yet they have less influence.
Once he was elected President he just let Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi run wild with the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and Health Care packages. President Obama could have given them direction and kept the preverbal reins tight on their activities, guide how these pieces of legislation proceeded through Congress. Instead, he took the criticism of giving them too much freedom in order to let them weaken their own power and influence. Just look at the poll numbers for Harry Reid; he might not even be reelected to the Senate let alone remain as Majority Leader. If he does happen to win he will be weakened enough that President Obama will be able to orchestrate the election of a leader that won’t take away from his coverage, not as strong a personality as his.
If he can overcome the Clinton Machine and the issue of whether he’s a true representative of the African-American community I believe he is smart enough to overcome the Scott Brown election.
First and foremost he has to realize that president’s have personal and political popularity. The two are independent, yet can ruin the other. He and the “Dem’s” have ridden that horse about as far as they can. More importantly, you can only blame your predecessor for so long. They’ve beaten that proverbial horse to death, even trying to attribute the Coakley loss to Brown on the economy that they inherited. Yes, Coakley is a Democrat, but she was thrown under the bus. It just shows a part of the problem, rather than take responsibility we have to attach blame elsewhere regardless of the facts. And while I’m on the subject, if George W. Bush was that bad why would you call upon him to help with the Haiti Relief efforts. I guess they want to be able to lay that on G.W. if the efforts don’t go well or are criticized.
When I began this writing I mentioned history repeating itself. With the vast majority of Americans believing that reforms are needed to our health care system, just as in 1993, how can anger about this have helped Scott Brown win election to the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy over a popular Democrat that just a month ago was 30 points ahead?
Just as in the early 90’s most people believe that the Health Care in this country is the best in the world. They also believe that there are problems that need to be corrected to improve it, and that it has to be affordable to those that have it as well as available to anyone that wants it. This can be done without scrapping the entire system and not by punishing those that currently have it. You also can’t accomplish it by making it more of a disincentive for a corporation to provide healthcare then not providing such care.
History has shown that Congress needs to truly and sincerely listen to the American people, all people, and then craft a plan that will truly provide for all. And could we quit changing the number of Americans that don’t have coverage because it will help the argument for the proposal.
A final thought about history is that all history is not negative, but it can have negative consequences on the future if it is forgotten. Eighteen (18) months ago the American public that had never voted, that had become disillusioned by politics became excited and eager to vote! Why? They saw a young man named Barack Obama that was positive and upbeat, he wasn’t ridiculing others, and he wasn’t putting people done! He also expressed the belief that the people needed to be listened to and shown that their opinion and beliefs mattered.
What happened to that man? That man would never have tolerated members of Congress demeaning a citizen, a voter, for asking questions, for wanting to share their thoughts and fears with their elected representatives. Instead of standing up for the citizen just trying to be a part of the process President Obama joined in the demeaning of people, these “Tea baggers”. Had he remembered his history, and listened to what was being said, he would have seen the analogy to the Tea Tax revolts of the 1770’s and the Boston Tea Party. He would have embraced the symbolism and exploited it, not reticule and demean it. President Obama went to Mass. this past weekend to campaign on behalf of Attorney General Coakley.
During that time he ridiculed Scott Brown because he was driving the state in his pickup truck that had 200,000 plus miles. There were a number of undecided voters, and Coakley supporters that decided to vote for Scott Brown after President Obama’s comments about Brown’s driving around in his truck. Worse than helping Brown win, the President gave his critics another sound bite to use as proof that he is an elitist and that he doesn’t care about (and looks down upon) the “common” citizen, the average American.
Fortunately the Massachusetts election occurred at the end of the first year of Barack Obama’s Presidency. Now he has time to remember history and give the voters what they elected and hoped for. A president that cares about them, about their opinion, and doesn’t think he is better than them. If he does that he can save the Democratic Party from a repeat of the 1994 midterm elections when they lost a forty four year majority in Congress, and practically guarantee his reelection in 2012. If he can give the voters the man that cared, instead of the President that looks down upon hard working voters, he can be remembered in history for a landslide reelection instead of just a footnote because of his ethnicity.
That’s My Opinion, What’s Your’s
The political pundits are talking about the message this election has sent to the established political machines, the public is fed up with this, or they don’t like that, etc. A few have touched on what I believe the real message is; if you don’t know history, if you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.
President Obama is an intelligent man; he has been a professor, why has he allowed the Democrats to repeat their mistakes of the past? Will he lead the Democratic Party to recover from this defeat in Mass. and avoid major losses in the midterm elections (repeating the outcome of the 1994 midterm elections)?
Let me address the last two points first. Will he, or maybe more appropriate, can he lead the “Dem’s" to avoid major losses? I’m not sure. When you look at his political history (as short as it is), his campaigns would take steps to disqualify and discredit opponents in order to avoid direct competition in a general election. Until Hillary Clinton, he hadn’t faced a real challenge in his political career.
In the case of Secretary Clinton, President Obama was smart. He got into an election that she (and most “Dem’s”) thought was hers, that it was her time, payback for standing by Bill. The attitude of entitlement caused her to not expect, or prepare for a serious challenge. It also caused her to not use President Clinton sooner; she wanted to show that she was her own person. She should have used Bill from the start, rode those coat tails back to Pennsylvania Avenue and then prove to her detractors that she was her own person and qualified. President Obama was able to capitalize on Secretary Clinton (and her campaign) not preparing for a serious challenge, as well as the fact that he hadn’t been in the Congress long enough to establish a voting record that could hurt him.
President Obama displayed his intellegance again once he was elected when he appointed Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. That limited her ability to attack him on foreign affairs should she choose to run against him in 2012, she could not attack him without tainting herself. This act also curtailed Bill’s activities and influence on the path the Democratic Party took.
President Obama was also able to limit the influence of some of the traditional leadership of the African-American community. When he first announced there were comments that he wasn’t black enough. Now these people are out there publicly supporting him, no matter what he does, and yet they have less influence.
Once he was elected President he just let Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi run wild with the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and Health Care packages. President Obama could have given them direction and kept the preverbal reins tight on their activities, guide how these pieces of legislation proceeded through Congress. Instead, he took the criticism of giving them too much freedom in order to let them weaken their own power and influence. Just look at the poll numbers for Harry Reid; he might not even be reelected to the Senate let alone remain as Majority Leader. If he does happen to win he will be weakened enough that President Obama will be able to orchestrate the election of a leader that won’t take away from his coverage, not as strong a personality as his.
If he can overcome the Clinton Machine and the issue of whether he’s a true representative of the African-American community I believe he is smart enough to overcome the Scott Brown election.
First and foremost he has to realize that president’s have personal and political popularity. The two are independent, yet can ruin the other. He and the “Dem’s” have ridden that horse about as far as they can. More importantly, you can only blame your predecessor for so long. They’ve beaten that proverbial horse to death, even trying to attribute the Coakley loss to Brown on the economy that they inherited. Yes, Coakley is a Democrat, but she was thrown under the bus. It just shows a part of the problem, rather than take responsibility we have to attach blame elsewhere regardless of the facts. And while I’m on the subject, if George W. Bush was that bad why would you call upon him to help with the Haiti Relief efforts. I guess they want to be able to lay that on G.W. if the efforts don’t go well or are criticized.
When I began this writing I mentioned history repeating itself. With the vast majority of Americans believing that reforms are needed to our health care system, just as in 1993, how can anger about this have helped Scott Brown win election to the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy over a popular Democrat that just a month ago was 30 points ahead?
Just as in the early 90’s most people believe that the Health Care in this country is the best in the world. They also believe that there are problems that need to be corrected to improve it, and that it has to be affordable to those that have it as well as available to anyone that wants it. This can be done without scrapping the entire system and not by punishing those that currently have it. You also can’t accomplish it by making it more of a disincentive for a corporation to provide healthcare then not providing such care.
History has shown that Congress needs to truly and sincerely listen to the American people, all people, and then craft a plan that will truly provide for all. And could we quit changing the number of Americans that don’t have coverage because it will help the argument for the proposal.
A final thought about history is that all history is not negative, but it can have negative consequences on the future if it is forgotten. Eighteen (18) months ago the American public that had never voted, that had become disillusioned by politics became excited and eager to vote! Why? They saw a young man named Barack Obama that was positive and upbeat, he wasn’t ridiculing others, and he wasn’t putting people done! He also expressed the belief that the people needed to be listened to and shown that their opinion and beliefs mattered.
What happened to that man? That man would never have tolerated members of Congress demeaning a citizen, a voter, for asking questions, for wanting to share their thoughts and fears with their elected representatives. Instead of standing up for the citizen just trying to be a part of the process President Obama joined in the demeaning of people, these “Tea baggers”. Had he remembered his history, and listened to what was being said, he would have seen the analogy to the Tea Tax revolts of the 1770’s and the Boston Tea Party. He would have embraced the symbolism and exploited it, not reticule and demean it. President Obama went to Mass. this past weekend to campaign on behalf of Attorney General Coakley.
During that time he ridiculed Scott Brown because he was driving the state in his pickup truck that had 200,000 plus miles. There were a number of undecided voters, and Coakley supporters that decided to vote for Scott Brown after President Obama’s comments about Brown’s driving around in his truck. Worse than helping Brown win, the President gave his critics another sound bite to use as proof that he is an elitist and that he doesn’t care about (and looks down upon) the “common” citizen, the average American.
Fortunately the Massachusetts election occurred at the end of the first year of Barack Obama’s Presidency. Now he has time to remember history and give the voters what they elected and hoped for. A president that cares about them, about their opinion, and doesn’t think he is better than them. If he does that he can save the Democratic Party from a repeat of the 1994 midterm elections when they lost a forty four year majority in Congress, and practically guarantee his reelection in 2012. If he can give the voters the man that cared, instead of the President that looks down upon hard working voters, he can be remembered in history for a landslide reelection instead of just a footnote because of his ethnicity.
That’s My Opinion, What’s Your’s
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
President’s First Year Culminates with the Christmas 2009 Terror Attack on Northwest Airlines
It has been almost three weeks since the Terrorist attack of Northwest Flight 253. Yes I said attack; although unsuccessful it was an attack none the less.
Not too long ago I asked if political correctness had gone too far? Regardless how you may have answered that question, when political correctness determines how this country deals with terror threats (this bomber, or the Fort Hood shooter) then it has gone TOO FAR!
I have been involved in various political campaigns, as the candidate, advisor, manager, etc.; I was even a member of a county political party Executive Committee. I mention my political background just to give a perspective for the following thoughts.
I am sick and tired of people using any “screw ups” with the “system” in detecting and deterring the Christmas Day attack to achieve and advance their political agenda. One side criticizes the Administration about the failures, then the other feels they have to respond by criticizing The Bush Administration (or claim that Bush handled similar situations the same way). Those that have, and are still doing this have convinced me that the President is wrong to order Guantanamo Detention facility closed. We should house these people at Guantanamo; they are posing almost as dangerous a threat to the United States as the current detainees.
One proverbial line that should never be crossed is when it comes to the lives of American, and other citizens traveling to (or within) the United States. Whoever crosses that line should be thrown out of office, regardless of political affiliation and allegiances. Allegiance should always be to the Republic before politics.
I was also upset at members of the Administration when they went on the talk and commentary programs and tried to down play and minimize what had occurred. You have to give it to President Obama’s advisors, they ran a fantastic campaign. Unfortunately the past year, and the response to this incident in particular, have demonstrated that they haven’t been able to transition from running a campaign to governing. They also need to realize, and soon, that they aren’t running a community organization in Cook County Illinois, nor are they running a state senator’s office, THEY ARE ASSISTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN MAINTAINING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THIS GREAT REPUBLIC.
It doesn’t bother me that President Obama didn’t address the nation until Tuesday, what irritates me is what was occurring during that time. Was it the result of being naïve as to the awesome responsibilities of the Executive Branch and of the citizenry’s expectations, or was it arrogance (the result of positive poll numbers for so long)?
Common sense should have told DHS Secretary Napolitano that the system didn’t work and to try and ease fears by saying otherwise would only anger people and cause them to doubt her fitness to serve as DHS Secretary. Americans were concerned, worried, and even scared for their safety and releasing pictures and video of President Obama playing golf gave the impression that he either didn’t care or was out of touch with the severity of the situation. If the goal was to reassure the public that they need not be afraid the White House Communications Office should have been putting out photos each day of President Obama receiving his daily intelligence briefing(s), or photos of him on the phone. Even if the briefings or phone calls were not about the attempted attack it would have reassured people that he had their safety as his primary concern. It would not have given critics the opportunity to use the golf pictures as a way of demonstrating the President is an elitist that is out of touch with, or just doesn’t care about “the average American” or “Joe the Plumber.”
In a week it will be a year since the inauguration, a year for the President’s advisors to adjust to government at a national level, a year to adjust their way of thinking and consider the welfare of the “whole” instead of the candidate. A few years (in some cases months) no one will remember who the advisors are; President Obama will be a part of history forever. If these advisors care about the President as much as they claim then they better realize that their action or inactions will be the “benchmark” by which the Obama Administration and ultimately President Obama will be judged and critiqued. They also need to remember that their true boss does not reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave; their true boss resides on “Main Street”.
Although I was impressed with Candidate Obama, I didn’t agree with a lot of the philosophies and goals he was talking about during the campaign. Once he was elected I decided to support my president, because he is my president, and because if the president fails the country will suffer.
Stop campaigning, stop polling, stop blaming everything on the previous administration, start governing, start doing what is right (as in correct not political leaning)!!!!!!!!!
That’s My Opinion, What’s Yours
Not too long ago I asked if political correctness had gone too far? Regardless how you may have answered that question, when political correctness determines how this country deals with terror threats (this bomber, or the Fort Hood shooter) then it has gone TOO FAR!
I have been involved in various political campaigns, as the candidate, advisor, manager, etc.; I was even a member of a county political party Executive Committee. I mention my political background just to give a perspective for the following thoughts.
I am sick and tired of people using any “screw ups” with the “system” in detecting and deterring the Christmas Day attack to achieve and advance their political agenda. One side criticizes the Administration about the failures, then the other feels they have to respond by criticizing The Bush Administration (or claim that Bush handled similar situations the same way). Those that have, and are still doing this have convinced me that the President is wrong to order Guantanamo Detention facility closed. We should house these people at Guantanamo; they are posing almost as dangerous a threat to the United States as the current detainees.
One proverbial line that should never be crossed is when it comes to the lives of American, and other citizens traveling to (or within) the United States. Whoever crosses that line should be thrown out of office, regardless of political affiliation and allegiances. Allegiance should always be to the Republic before politics.
I was also upset at members of the Administration when they went on the talk and commentary programs and tried to down play and minimize what had occurred. You have to give it to President Obama’s advisors, they ran a fantastic campaign. Unfortunately the past year, and the response to this incident in particular, have demonstrated that they haven’t been able to transition from running a campaign to governing. They also need to realize, and soon, that they aren’t running a community organization in Cook County Illinois, nor are they running a state senator’s office, THEY ARE ASSISTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN MAINTAINING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THIS GREAT REPUBLIC.
It doesn’t bother me that President Obama didn’t address the nation until Tuesday, what irritates me is what was occurring during that time. Was it the result of being naïve as to the awesome responsibilities of the Executive Branch and of the citizenry’s expectations, or was it arrogance (the result of positive poll numbers for so long)?
Common sense should have told DHS Secretary Napolitano that the system didn’t work and to try and ease fears by saying otherwise would only anger people and cause them to doubt her fitness to serve as DHS Secretary. Americans were concerned, worried, and even scared for their safety and releasing pictures and video of President Obama playing golf gave the impression that he either didn’t care or was out of touch with the severity of the situation. If the goal was to reassure the public that they need not be afraid the White House Communications Office should have been putting out photos each day of President Obama receiving his daily intelligence briefing(s), or photos of him on the phone. Even if the briefings or phone calls were not about the attempted attack it would have reassured people that he had their safety as his primary concern. It would not have given critics the opportunity to use the golf pictures as a way of demonstrating the President is an elitist that is out of touch with, or just doesn’t care about “the average American” or “Joe the Plumber.”
In a week it will be a year since the inauguration, a year for the President’s advisors to adjust to government at a national level, a year to adjust their way of thinking and consider the welfare of the “whole” instead of the candidate. A few years (in some cases months) no one will remember who the advisors are; President Obama will be a part of history forever. If these advisors care about the President as much as they claim then they better realize that their action or inactions will be the “benchmark” by which the Obama Administration and ultimately President Obama will be judged and critiqued. They also need to remember that their true boss does not reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave; their true boss resides on “Main Street”.
Although I was impressed with Candidate Obama, I didn’t agree with a lot of the philosophies and goals he was talking about during the campaign. Once he was elected I decided to support my president, because he is my president, and because if the president fails the country will suffer.
Stop campaigning, stop polling, stop blaming everything on the previous administration, start governing, start doing what is right (as in correct not political leaning)!!!!!!!!!
That’s My Opinion, What’s Yours
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)