As I watched this year's presidential election unfold, I grew more and more frustrated with all the candidates making promises they could not keep. Each audience had their own agenda and the candidates speaking to them chose to pander to that specific concern. When talking to union members, they were all pro-union. The same politicians were pro-management when addressing business leaders. Each chameleon politician put on the camouflage that would allow them to blend into their surroundings... with each public appearance.
Now, we've got a new president and vice president, and already the back pedaling has begun. When all the Democratic candidates were parroting the need to pull out of Iraq within the first 60 days of their taking office, no one really asked "once pulled out of Iraq, where will these troops go?"
If the military personnel are taken off of active duty and returned to their homes, we will be adding additional stress to an already depressed labor market. So, does keeping them in the military and employed answer the promises made on the campaign trail? I don't think so. If they are just sent from Iraq to Afghanistan is that keeping a campaign promise to bring the troops home and out of harm's way? Or is it just moving them from one engagement (where an intelligence failure led us to believe things were worse) into a situation where there is little to no intelligence??
Don't get me wrong, I want the administration to succeed. I want our economy to shrug off the recession and let Americans get back to work and spending like normal. But I am also appalled at the backsliding that is being done even before Barack Obama takes office in January. It appears that he's been given some national security briefs and now he understands what the general public did not know about the engagements abroad.
I know, I know. The cable news channels can be trusted to tell us EVERYTHING. There is never any kind of sensitive information that doesn't make it onto the TV news... but if there were, Obama knows it now. Thus the backsliding.
So, the Deomocratic party, of which I am a card carrying member, rode into the White House on the "get us out of Iraq" ticket. Who really thinks that is going to happen? Who really thinks that going from Iraq to Afghanistan fulfills that promise?
It makes me crazy enough to throw things.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Friday, November 30, 2007
Cut Off Foreign Aid to the Sudan
There's an old saying in parenting that you have to make sure that the lesson your child learns is the lesson you wanted to teach.
Now maybe I'm just angry, but seeing stories like this: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/30/sudan.bears/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
make me want to write my congressman. Is it just me, or are we sending foreign aid to countries filled with radicals? Perhaps 1000 protestors isn't exactly 'filled'.
Most of the pleas for aid that inundate television and the news media center on Sub-Saharan Africa. We are barraged with imagery showing countries ravaged by civil war, hunger and overwhelming poverty. We are exhorted to share our wealth and make a difference in the lives of these worthy people. But are they worthy? Are the majority of these people worth investing in?
As an American, I am used to free speech. Oftentimes, that means I have to put up with seeing and hearing stuff that I truly disagree with--but that's okay. It's a free country and we have laws to protect people and their right to that freedom of speech.
When I see folks fighting and protesting to change laws or right wrongs, I can even find a place in my heart to root for the underdogs, this is also the American way. What I am not used to is a group of people whipping themselves up into a frenzy about a stuffed animal.
Lashes and jail time for having the bad judgment to allow children to name a bear? When you give kids the right to vote, don't they have to take responsibility for their actions? Who are these 1000 adults protesting? Are they the parents of these school kids?
Obviously, these people are not getting the point that it's their KIDS who don't understand that one doesn't name a beloved stuffed animal after a respected religious leader. Who should really be punished here? If the Islamist parents are mortified (and I respect their right to be outraged) shouldn't they focus their zeal for punishment on the little ones who pushed for the bear's monniker in the first place?
Most of what I have read in the news (and we all know how fair and balanced that is) says that the British teacher was giving the class lessons on responsibility by allowing the children to take the bear home and journal their activities with the toy. The lesson in responsibility is lost on this teacher. Lashing her and jailing her will not make her believe that Mohammad was a bad name for a stuffed animal. It's not her faith, it's not her belief system.
Seems like the folks who are worried about their children buying into disrespect by so naming a teddy bear would punish the kids. Or better yet, call the teacher and visit the classroom. Sit down in a circle with the children and share their teachings about the Prophet. Tell the children that to name a toy after a revered religious leader is blasphemous (maybe use 'bad' because they're just kids) and then offer up some suggestions like "Harry" or "Smokey".
Why did these zealots lash out at the teacher, who is in effect, totally ignorant of their religious mores? Why didn't they reach out to their youth and try to teach the lesson that they want learned?
If we are going to overreact, then I want to cut off all foreign aid to the Sudan. I mean, these 1000 people protesting are going nuts, right? The lesson I'm learning here is to overreact to things that make me crazy. No need to chunk anything at the walls, just write my congressmen and senators and tell them that I no longer support any foreign aid to the Sudan. That'll show them.
Now maybe I'm just angry, but seeing stories like this: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/30/sudan.bears/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
make me want to write my congressman. Is it just me, or are we sending foreign aid to countries filled with radicals? Perhaps 1000 protestors isn't exactly 'filled'.
Most of the pleas for aid that inundate television and the news media center on Sub-Saharan Africa. We are barraged with imagery showing countries ravaged by civil war, hunger and overwhelming poverty. We are exhorted to share our wealth and make a difference in the lives of these worthy people. But are they worthy? Are the majority of these people worth investing in?
As an American, I am used to free speech. Oftentimes, that means I have to put up with seeing and hearing stuff that I truly disagree with--but that's okay. It's a free country and we have laws to protect people and their right to that freedom of speech.
When I see folks fighting and protesting to change laws or right wrongs, I can even find a place in my heart to root for the underdogs, this is also the American way. What I am not used to is a group of people whipping themselves up into a frenzy about a stuffed animal.
Lashes and jail time for having the bad judgment to allow children to name a bear? When you give kids the right to vote, don't they have to take responsibility for their actions? Who are these 1000 adults protesting? Are they the parents of these school kids?
Obviously, these people are not getting the point that it's their KIDS who don't understand that one doesn't name a beloved stuffed animal after a respected religious leader. Who should really be punished here? If the Islamist parents are mortified (and I respect their right to be outraged) shouldn't they focus their zeal for punishment on the little ones who pushed for the bear's monniker in the first place?
Most of what I have read in the news (and we all know how fair and balanced that is) says that the British teacher was giving the class lessons on responsibility by allowing the children to take the bear home and journal their activities with the toy. The lesson in responsibility is lost on this teacher. Lashing her and jailing her will not make her believe that Mohammad was a bad name for a stuffed animal. It's not her faith, it's not her belief system.
Seems like the folks who are worried about their children buying into disrespect by so naming a teddy bear would punish the kids. Or better yet, call the teacher and visit the classroom. Sit down in a circle with the children and share their teachings about the Prophet. Tell the children that to name a toy after a revered religious leader is blasphemous (maybe use 'bad' because they're just kids) and then offer up some suggestions like "Harry" or "Smokey".
Why did these zealots lash out at the teacher, who is in effect, totally ignorant of their religious mores? Why didn't they reach out to their youth and try to teach the lesson that they want learned?
If we are going to overreact, then I want to cut off all foreign aid to the Sudan. I mean, these 1000 people protesting are going nuts, right? The lesson I'm learning here is to overreact to things that make me crazy. No need to chunk anything at the walls, just write my congressmen and senators and tell them that I no longer support any foreign aid to the Sudan. That'll show them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)