The Shutdown - Why Be Surprised?

Our illustrious politicians in Washington have been telegraphing the showdown, which has resulted in the Shutdown, for several weeks now. Like Syria, this is another major surrender of American prestige around the world. The world is laughing uncontrollably and is swiftly losing any respect for American leadership and what it stands for. The upcoming fiasco about raising the U.S. national debt will just about finish American worldwide influence. Do words like "childish" and "kindergarten" fit? How about "senile" and "unpatriotic" to describe politicians who will do anything to achieve their political goals, especially hurting the American people and the United States of America?

The bottom line is that Obamacare is a law that we must obey; no matter what devious methods the Democrats used to get it passed, it is the law of our nation. Republicans are far amiss in trying to defund Obamacare as a way of delaying or completely stopping the implementation of this stupid and unenforceable program. Perhaps a better strategy would be to allow the law to go into effect and then let  the American voters decide if they like it or not. Their outrage will almost surely result in a Republican dominated House and Senate, giving Republicans the necessary legislative votes to repeal Obamacare. However, don't let Obamacare be the Republicans' Iraq: they will have to be prepared to offer and implement an alternate plan.

The hypocrisy of the issues surrounding the shutdown are incredible. Congress has exempted themselves from Obamacare and ensured their pay continues, even during a shutdown. Why should we be paying our congressional representatives for their fruitless gridlock? Perhaps a "dedicated" Republican should introduce a bill in the House to stop congressional pay during unfunded periods and require our representatives and senators to comply with the law of the land and embrace Obamacare. Perhaps someone should develop a congressional  "pay for performance" compensation scheme. Perhaps the American voter should avoid casting a vote for any incumbent in the next election. Somehow, Americans need to find a way to overcome a political process that is on autopilot and serves the individual politicians hugely disproportionately to the American people. We're not being represented any longer, we are being used to fuel the egos and personal fortunes of those we elect. Now, who's stupid?

I am saddened to see the wonderful Republican alternative being destroyed by a few "at any cost" radicals. The Republican party is as adrift and leaderless as our country and is devouring itself from within. The line dividing liberals and conservatives has been blurred, if not erased. Ethics, patriotism, honesty, courage and accountability seem to have abandoned the political scene in favor of personal power and financial gain. Moral indignation and emotionalism seem to drive the political process (even elections), rather than a pragmatic goal of doing what's good for our country and its citizens. Somehow, our politicians have become proud of their ability to avoid compromise, unflinchingly standing their ground no matter the cost. Gridlock has become a badge of honor, worn by nearly all of our representatives and senators. The American people, although often used as a convenient excuse, have fallen to last place on the political priority list.

Out of laziness and indifference, we Americans are empowering our politicians to destroy the American dream and lifestyle as we know it today. There will come a sad day when even our unique and insightful Constitution won't be able to save us from political predators.

Psychology and Economic Recovery - The Sky is Not Falling!

It's important to recognize that market psychology has a huge impact on how fast, when, and if, an economic slump will recover, especially in a consumption-based economy like ours in America. American investors need faith that companies will grow and prosper before investing in the stock market (the major source of expansion and growth capital for American companies). Americans won't spend their money (real or borrowed) unless they feel confident their employment future is well secured. Although partially true, new jobs don't just come from the rich and large, untaxed companies, they come from middle-class Americans spending their money (the "demand" part of the equation, remember?). American citizens must believe that their elected politicians are capable, honest and dedicated to helping America and not just themselves. In short, economic activity is based heavily on consumers' perception of the "future." Economic recovery in our system is based on employed consumers willing to spend their money.

I am a registered Republican, but I am deeply saddened by the rhetoric oozing out of the Republican camp. "The sky is falling" is the wrong message to send to Americans whose economic transactions are critical to our very economic recovery. With low consumer confidence and dampened reasonable optimism, our recovery can only move forward painfully slowly. The Democrats aren't much better as they paint a picture of economic bliss. Nobody seems to be truthfully informing the American people that their role in our economic recovery is what really counts. Everyone needs to focus on what's good for the whole and not what's good for the individual.

Taxation is an important tool to stimulate economic activity. The focus of tax reductions, however, should be on the group who can achieve the most effective impact on economic recovery: middle-class America. Handouts, generally implemented by Democrats to gain votes, don't produce responsible spending habits. Although income redistribution is an important element of our economic recovery, no one should have a free ride. Our legislators should stop emulating Robin Hood and responsibly execute their constitutional duties. A working public pays taxes and creates jobs through consumption. Too bad all of the bailout funds we spend on big industry didn't go toward infrastructure, new plants and more jobs; what a terrible waste of time and effort!

The political gridlock we've had for the past several years has created a sense of frustration and despair in many Americans and in most of the Americans who can affect our economic recovery the most. Petty political bickering continues while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Is that what America is all about? We clearly have a political structure that cares more about ego and self-enrichment that about American and its people. Unless political idealism, ethics and morality reemerge, the path back to economic prosperity will indeed be long and rocky.

After all of this doom and gloom, America will recover and retake its place in world leadership. It may take generations for the American people to wake up and realize that they are the key to success and their own prosperity. When our society finally accepts accountability and responsibility, the "sky's the limit." What will it take to get us there?

Syria: Let's Don't Do It!

When Obama spoke to the German people before he was first elected, he promised to place all of the world's nuclear weapons under his control. That illogical and emotional statement may have been part of the basis for his Nobel Peace Prize selection. I was sad at the huge number of people who lauded his comment as brilliant and inspired. We now know that Obama can't even control the chemical weapons stored in Syria, the weapons "liberated" with the fall of Gaddafi and Hezbollah's conventional arsenal. I'm not sure anyone could.

As best I can tell, the compelling reason to launch a military strike in Syria is to save Obama's face and help secure his positive presidential legacy. So far, he has failed to assemble any meaningful support for the strike from any serious friend or ally. England, our best "friend" won't support it, NATO won't sign on, certainly Russia, Iran and China vote "nay." Even the UN has pulled out of Syria before completing their "investigation" into the use of chemical weapons (by someone). The signals are clear: no one wants a military strike against Syria to be in their resumé.

Let's list the bad versus good of a military strike in Syria. First the bad,

World condemnation for taking unilateral, deadly military action without conclusive proof of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime; high risk of the U.S. becoming embroiled (long term?) in yet another Middle East mess; high potential for creating political instability in the entire region; indirectly supporting a jihadist effort to assume control of Syria (and beyond); high risk of causing potentially destabilizing or at least deadly, jihadist attacks against our friends; collateral loss of life and all the negativity that goes with it; no clear military gains from a limited strike; negatives follow a strike that is too weak as well as one that is too powerful; no real long-term advantage to U.S. foreign policy and interests; other unintended results (think Iraq);

and then the good: Demonstrate that the U.S. does not bluff (may cause Russia and Iran to tread lightly (for a while), knowing the U.S. may back its threats with action); help Obama establish that he is a leader with power; may help destabilize the al Assad regime (but is that what we really want to happen?). The Middle East is becoming fertile ground for jihadists grabbing power from dictators, and the resultant instability.

What about not launching a military strike against Syria's chemical weapons/delivery structure? We'd (Obama) be exposed as setting "red lines" that are really just bluffs. Russia and Iran might be able to consolidate more influence in the Middle East, at least for a while; we could be viewed as a weak nation that doesn't support our friends or democracy (so what else is new?).

It's the unknown that bothers me. We just can't predict the many results of a unilateral military strike against Syria. I believe the bad outweighs the good, but who really knows? So let's don't do it! The U.S. is already viewed as a leaderless world power aimlessly wondering around in full reaction mode. I rather face more of the status quo than post-strike negatives and uncertainties.

Sergeant Films Women at West Point - Why Am I Not Surprised?

As is often the case with many problems, the Army is focusing on encouraging the reporting of sexual harassment and punishing the offenders (as it should). Not good enough, however! This problem is much more complicated and is endemic to the Army (military?) culture. A basic cultural change is imperative before this problem will go away.

Several years ago, a front page picture in the European version of the Stars and Stripes showed a major theater commander with his hands on the shoulders of a young, female PFC. The balance of the scene was filled with smiling senior NCOs.

As I remember the story, the young PFC was dining with the group of senior NCOs when the general walked by. She boldly made some comment about him sharing the mess tent with the troops. He approached her, put his hands on her shoulders and informed her that he had more time in mess tents than she had in the Army.

What's wrong with this picture? Why was a junior, female enlisted person sharing a table with senior, male NCOs? Why did she feel comfortable making a remark to or about the general? Why would the general "fatherly" put his hands on the young, female PFC? Why in the world would the Stars and Stripes newspaper publish such a picture at all, let alone on the front page? And finally, perhaps most important of all, why was there no public outcry - from anybody?

I can't answer these questions, but someone should. The press has been full in the past years of senior military and defense department officials taking sexual advantage of subordinates. In many cases, the relationships appear consensual, but for vastly different reasons. The fact is sexual harassment should be directly encoded into the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and carry severe punishment options. "Conduct unbecoming" and "acts prejudicial" are just catch-all phrases to avoid calling this problem what it really is: predatory sexual behavior.

How can we solve a problem if we're unwilling to even give it a name. After each incident, someone will retire (probably with full pension and revered military rank), and our leaders will shout "zero tolerance..." until the next incident which will restart the same, well-worn cycle. They just don't get it!

More on Gun Control

This issue continues to stir the national emotion, in an extremely disproportionate way. The loss of any human life is cause for sadness and concern, but we have to put the nearly 2.5 million deaths in America per year into proportion. Typically, around 11,000 Americans die each year from gun-related homicide, with another 19,000 dying from gun-related accident or suicide. By comparison, over 550,000 die from cancer, over 800,000 from cardiovascular disease and nearly 125,000 die accidentally. If we ban guns in a futile attempt to save the potentially 11,000 that will die each year from gunshots, do we ban hamburgers which are complicit in heart disease, obesity and E coli?

Certainly, we need improved gun control to prevent illegal transfers, juvenile access to weapons and to create records to trace ownership of guns used in violent crimes. More importantly, we need to deal with the underlying causes of gun-related violence: dysfunctional or non-existent families, unemployment, criminal behavior, mental illness, poverty - all issues which dramatically increase the probability that someone will die from a gunshot wound. Please read the comments at the following two links to get a deeper understanding of the problem and the "statistics" associated with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

http://angrywhitedude.com/2012/12/understanding-the-numbers-on-gun-related-deaths/



Gun control is an important issue, worthy of Presidential interest and Congressional action. However, there might be more pressing, higher priority issues such as our sagging economy, national debt, lack of a funded budget and unemployment. Just resolving unemployment in this country will sharply reduce violent crime and gun-related deaths. Our politicians need to get on with governance that counts and let the windmill spin.

Religion and the Law

The supposed "hypocrisy" of the Catholic church in Colorado is ridiculous. What Catholics believe about the beginning of life is not relevant to a law suit. That's why it's called a "law" suit. Colorado state law must be applied in the deaths of a mother and her unborn fetuses. The law must decide if she were the victim of a wrongful death at the hands of the hospital. The tragedy of the deaths of her fetuses is also a legal issue and not a moral, religious or emotional one. The state law regarding the beginning of life should be changed, but doing so would legitimize "Pro-Life."