Excellent speech. The team of Hillary and Barack (or Barack and Hillary?) is the right team to move this forward, and the President did an excellent job of framing the issues and providing the solutions. He deftly pointed to Iran, Yemen and Bahrain, putting everyone on notice that fundamental and democratic change was not going to stop. Also, he reminded that Israel – in order to maintain its democratic heritage – could not maintain dominance over another group. Mr. Obama let them all know that there is a peaceful and successful path. Great work!
Like George H.W. Bush and his team which handled the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Mr. Obama and his team are steering a very smart, steady and forward-looking path. From his speech in Cairo, to his subsequent actions, and to this speech and beyond, it is simply refreshing to hear a team speak about these things. These are momentous times, and we must tread carefully. This speech was a good start; now the team must successfully navigate some very tricky waters.
Of course, we do not expect to see the French Tricolor marching on Moscow anytime soon, but recent military activity by the French in key hot spots around the globe suggests a different way of thinking by President Nicolas Sarkozy. France? Military activity? Putting these words together in recent decades in the same sentence generally suggested that the speaker was beginning to tell a joke. Since World War II, scene of one of the great debacles in military history, and the following decades of French imperial implosion (North Africa, SE Asia) in the 1950s and 1960s, France has received very little credit for its military history. Although the French Resistance in World War II generally is seen as very credible, it is notable that they were resisting the victorious German Army. Besides, usually the Resistance is mentioned in the same breath as Marshal Petain, the much-maligned leader of the Vichy France government. Vichy and “Nazi collaborator” are generally thought to mean the same thing. Such a dim view of the French military and the valor of its soldiers may not be fair, but such is the Frenchman’s fate in the world of sound bites and public images.
Recent history has not helped this image. President Francois Mitterand (1981-1995) was perceived as “weak” in the face of the tough-talking tandem of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. President Jacques Chirac (1995-2007) was rarely a friend of the United States, and was often seen as being too cozy with Russia or some other country that did not see eye-to-eye with the United States. That’s just it, of course – much of the perception of the French military and the French people has been cast in the opaque view of what supposedly has been best for the United States. If France was acting in its own interests, and those interests were counter to the United States, France was considered weak, anti-American, and “socialist.” This reached its height in the backlash against France opposing the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 – remember “Freedom Fries?” Generally (and sadly) a Frenchman’s discussion about diplomacy was always seen as an affront to American interests.
So it is with great interest that we seen French jets attacking government positions in Libya, and French troops in the Ivory Coast shocking President Laurent Gbagbo into thinking about surrender. Wow. Certainly, the French have been active all along (think about all of those French peacekeepers who have worn the light blue helmet of the UN all of those years). But Sarkosy is looking to be a bit more proactive, forceful, and leading. Let’s sit back and see how it goes…..
He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat –Napolean Bonaparte
How do you define greatness? It might be in the physical exertion that comes with an excellent sporting effort. It might be in the realization that a mother’s touch cannot be surpassed. It might even be in the words of a great speaker or in the writings of a renowned religious figure. These are certainly true, but how national leaders deal with adversity and shifting circumstances can speak volumes of what it means to be great. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi shows that a leader can be clueless. President Mubarak is not much different, but he did have some decent sense towards the end. Of course, where is he now? Counting his money?
For true leadership, you need to turn to Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev. Yes, a Soviet Premier. While Ronald Reagan is often credited with winning the Cold War, Mr. Gorbachev actually made the Cold War end. Without Gorbachev, Mr. Reagan was but a Contra-supporting, Grenada-invading president. Remember, he pulled out of Lebanon in 1982, the seminal moment in the development of Al Qaeda – when the soon-to-be terrorist organization realized that the US would run from adversity.
Amidst these turbulent times, Mr. Gorbachev wrote the book “Perestoika” in 1987, years before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and his words in this book speak volumes to what he was seeking. As it turns out, circumstances overtook Mr. Gorbachev’s plans, but he also knew how to release his grip. As Bill Keller suggests in this article, he did it gracefully: How to Lose a Country Gracefully.
Time magazine labeled Mr. Gorbachev as the “Man of the Year” in 1987, the “Man of the Decade” in 1989. Cheers to that. Great people DO accomplish great things.
New York City Mayor Bloomberg has his critics, and many of them are Democrats. However, with regards to unions, collective bargaining, budget deficits and fairness, he is “on the money” with these comments:
While the proponents of the labor unions in Wisconsin have the right to protest, and their effort to challenge the shady tactics of Governor Walker is highly warranted, they should have the collective sense not to be hypocritical. Being a hypocrite does not make you a liar, and your view still can carry water, but the decision of many of the protesters in Madison to chant “Kill the Bill” shows very bad form and displays a level of hypocrisy which unfortunately is all too common in US politics. What were they thinking??
Just slightly over one month ago, in the wake of the shootings in Tucson, Arizona, which altered the life of Representative Gabrielle Giffords forever, national Democrats generated many sound bites to criticize the Republicans for using the work “kill” in legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Granted, that was using the word “kill” in formal legislation, but the point was not lost – interjecting the word “kill” into political discourse was probably an unnecessary tactic. Granted, the Republicans never changed the name of the bill, although from a public relations standpoint they did seem to try to moderate their language. There is a difference between inserting the word “kill” into a bill, but using it on placards and chanting it in the halls of a state capitol is not all that different.
Shame on the protesters. But long live their right and reason to protest.
As a proud resident of the State of Illinois, I am doubly proud that our state has been home to the Wisconsin state senators who did the only thing they could do to stop the steam-rolling of union rights in their state. So, welcome state senators! Try a Chicago hot dog in lieu of one of your delicious brats!
On the surface – if we believe Governor Walker – this is a fight about fiscal solvency and balanced budgets. However, coming from a state that actually is not all that bad off in terms of fiscal health, it is hard to swallow that the government needs to strip away the rights of its citizens to supposedly come up with a balanced budget. Spare us the cover story, governor. This is about politics, Republican “values,” and taking advantage of people and their weakened condition.
It is most interesting that Governor Scott Walker, newly elected governor of the Cheese State, is looking to crush the collective bargaining rights of certain state employees, like teachers and nurses, but is not touching the rights of police and firemen. Why is that? Do you think it is because he values police and firemen more? Maybe it’s because the police and firemen gave more to his campaign than did the teachers and nurses? Check the facts out. Just proves that this is more about politics than it is about sensible and fair policies. This is a watershed moment…similar steps are afoot in Ohio, Tennessee and elsewhere. Newly elected Republicans, claiming some sort of “slash and burn” mandate to reduce spending and keep taxes low (an untenable position), are using the financial difficulties of states to justify the un-democratic assault on unions and their workers.
In an interesting twist, even those unionized workers who are not being impacted today – including police and fire – are starting to join the protests against Governor Walker. This is nothing new for Scott Walker. Since his days in Milwaukee he has been the source of very strong measures and a lightening rod for some of the same people/issues that he has in Madison. It is a great tactic on his part, and clearly the result of deeply held beliefs, and we suspect that he will start to make the list of potential candidates for the Republican nomination in 2012. Don’t Tread on Him!
Yes, everyone needs to give something in these tights times. Salaries need to be reviewed. Pensions need to be reviewed, managed and saved. We should not have to rely solely on tax/fee increases to improve states’ financial pictures. If fiscal management requires all people (including union workers) to give more, then so be it. But using this logic to crush unions is bad politics and bad policy. Collective bargaining helps to protect workers’ rights, and it provides the less powerful a bit of a leg to stand on. Rather than try to crush the unions, Republicans should be trying to provide all workers a fair wage and a respectable position.
This is not about unions and education. It is not about arcane and bizarre work rules that unions somehow “impose” on employers. This is not about charter schools versus public schools. Those are different fights and should be waged out in the open. Unions are not perfect, but they are also not the cause of all of our problems. Yes, we need to examine unions, and unions need to adjust their tactics and goals, but subverting them in this way cannot be supported. Buck up Badgers, and hang in there! You are fighting the good fight.
I love this article (see below pictures) – partly because it shows that the Iraqi people finally have their country back, and can make their own decisions. More importantly, although quite scary, is that in the article a spokesman for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki actually compares the Victory Arch in Baghdad to the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and the Berlin Wall. He suggests that the Iraqi people are somehow “better” because they do not destroy their legacy. Interesting concept – did anyone suggest to the Germans that they ought to keep the Wall intact? Also, does anyone think that the Victory Arch in Baghdad equals in stature to the centuries-old Buddhist statues? Interesting….now that the Iraqis have their country back, what will they do? Apparently, they will not destroy their Hussein-era monuments. I suppose that is ok as long as they do not destroy their true legacy.
Remember Virginia Thomas’s early morning call to Anita Hill? She went out of her way to harass Ms. Hill, and now she is again taking an overly pro-active lead in consulting for ultra-conservative issues. While she has the right to do what she wants, and a woman should never have to subsume her career to that of her husband’s, Ms. Thomas’s activities ought to be tracked very closely. Her consulting firm is focused on her ability to be “an ‘ambassador’ between the new citizen activities (tea party movement), the established conservative movement the entrepreneurial class, the alternative media and principled statesmen and candidates.” Does Fox News count as the “alternative media?” The title of this post is taken from her bio found here.
I do not know “Ginny” Thomas, and can only read her husband’s opinions, but I get the sense that their behind-the-scenes activities are dove-tailed to make effective use of their positions and influence. This is the definition of a judge who is compromised and ought to limit his opinions to those where there is not a conflict. You cannot stop the husband-wife interaction and their general impact on events, but we can make sure that Justice Thomas does limited harm to our country.
The title of this post……it describes the ideal country, right? Modern infrastructure and economy. Moderate politics and foreign policy. Democratic institutions that help the people. In an interview with Anderson Cooper of CNN, the leader-in-waiting, Mohamed ElBaradei, proclaimed these to be his goals if he were to lead the country.
What a refreshing take on what is important to a country and what its leaders should fight to achieve. Is this Egypt today? Hardly. While Hosni Mubarak has brought security and limited economic progress, he has left a cesspool of discontent, economic malaise, and political upheaval in his wake.
For that reason, he must go. As of this writing, Mr. Mubarak seems to have received the message and does not plan on running for office again in September. Good riddance, say many in Egypt, but not fast enough. They want him gone now. On the other hand, there is a core group of constituents in Egypt which proclaims strong allegiance to Mr. Mubarak and will not be happy to see him go. Their voices have not been loudly heard, but expect to hear them shortly.
So will we see an Egypt which portrays ElBaradei’s hope? Will Egypt continue to remain a member of the list of stable countries throughout the world? Might this be another Iran? Might it be a Turkey? Do we really know?
We in the United States have a very particular vision of how this should evolve, and we likely share Mr. ElBaradei’s vision. However, are we ready for something that is different? Will we get a modern, moderate and democratic country?
What’s great about all of this? American political junkies now have a September 2011 election upon which to focus. Good practice for 2012!
Just read the first few paragraphs in this article to get a sense of what we are up against in Afghanistan. Wow. And we thought Chris Hansen of NBC was the only one exposing pedophiles….
When someone places Fareed Zakaria and Henry Kissinger in the same room and turns on the video recorder, you are bound to hear something unique and intriguing. Anyone paying attention to the news lately heard that China’s President Hu Jintao recently visited the United States, making stops in Washington, DC, and the great City of Chicago.
With all of the news coverage (and endless comments about Michelle Obama’s striking red dress) we heard much about the strained relations between both countries. China has grown increasingly active in their neck-of-the-woods, and has been more vocal about their criticisms towards the United States. This more assertive posture has caught many a diplomat’s attention, and has certainly raised a few eyebrows over at the Pentagon. Making news with a fighter jet with purported stealth capabilities will do that, especially when our defense chief is visiting. Although we know very little about its technical specifications, China merely exposing the potential for stealth warfare gets everyone excited. Coupled with their actions across Asia, many are worried and concerned about China’s intentions.
On top of that, of course, are the never-ending stories about how much smarter the Chinese students supposedly are when compared to the American educated class. No doubt, with 1.1+ billion humans in China, there are going to be quite a few smart people. It should be noted that many of those Chinese students still travel to the United States for higher education.
Now, let’s not even get started on the economy – with the U.S. suffering its worst economic downturn in 70 years, and China continuing to outperform many countries, some commentators would have you believe that we will soon be speaking Chinese and buying our Starbucks lattes in yuans.
But really, this post is not about the strained relations, the economic comparisons, and the educational demise of anyone. It’s about a step towards possibly understanding the Chinese, rather than thinking that they are out to get you at every turn.
So, what about Kissinger? And what about chess? When asked by Mr. Zakaria if the Chinese were decidedly “better” than the United States, Mr. Kissinger simply said they are “different.” How so?
In the United States, we favor chess; in China they favor an ancient game called Go. Huh? According to Mr. Kissinger – an esteemed China scholar and someone who has studied China most of his adult life – it comes down to board games?
Of course, not exactly just about board games, but he raises an interesting perspective. It’s one opinion for sure, but Mr. Kissinger’s comparison does give you something to think about, and potentially to better understand the Chinese when it comes to foreign affairs. He is not suggesting that Go is better than chess, or that Go players are smarter than chess players. He is just simply saying that they are different games, and those differences help elucidate an aspect of Chinese relations.
Both games are clearly higher-level thinking games (unlike, say, beer-pong), and rely on some specific rules for game play, but there are some stark differences to which Mr. Kissinger refers when using Go to explain Chinese diplomacy.
Chess: mainly tactical game, with fixed set of pieces defined by specific rules of movement. Object of the game is to beat down your opponent and destroy all of his (or her) pieces. You win by taking over and destroying.
Go: more strategic in nature, with thousands of more variations than a game of chess because the number of pieces is not fixed, and each turn introduces more pieces to the game board. Also, the object of the game is not to destroy, but to encircle your opponent and capture more territory. There is still a winner and a loser, but it is a more subtle and complex end-game.
Mr. Kissinger’s comparison gives some food for thought.
For some additional thoughts, albeit a little more dramatic in a History Channel sort-of-way, this video positions an interesting contrast between chess and Go in the context of the Vietnam War:
A bit ironic since it was Mr. Kissinger who – seeing no hope for the U.S. in Vietnam – negotiated the end-game with his Asian counterparts. Just some things to think about when eating your next batch of Chinese food!
So, let’s ask Ms. Bachmann how much she is spending of the government’s money to deliver this speech. The fact that the Republican majority in the House is allowing this to happen speaks to their complete and utter subservience to this fringe movement. This is just pathetic, and a complete show of disrespect to our President and her own party. Maybe Sarah Palin can write a rebuttal to Ms. Bachmann’s rebuttal?
Despite searching for ten minutes I could not locate any commentary on Ms. Bachmann’s speech on Fox News website (www.foxnews.com), only the video of the speech itself. Hmmm.
Ok, so I only live in the suburbs of one of the greatest cities on the planet. I do not pay city taxes – not even Cook County taxes (DuPage and Will Counties), and I have not ridden the El train regularly since 1991. However, I grew up in the Chicagoland area, live there now, and did live in the City of Chicago at one point earlier in my life. Even as a teacher back in the 1990s I assigned my high school students a project to locate a statue somewhere in the city and to write a short report about it. I compelled them to go into the city because so few of the suburban kids had ever been. Wow, did I ever get flak from some parents on that (you mean I need to drive my kid into the city?!?)!
So, needless to say, I do feel that I have the right to comment on issues around the Chicago mayoral race. After all, my evening news is full of Chicago political news, so I should have an interest in who is mayor. So it is clear, my interest lies with having Rahm Emanuel take the helm after the Daley reign. His chief opponents, Carol Moseley Braun and Gary Chico label Mr. Emanuel as “an outsider.” Precisely, and that is why he should lead. While Mr. Emanuel is hardly the “Washington outsider” that Moseley Braun labels him, Mr. Emanuel will bring a cosmopolitan style with him that is backed by significant experience in Washington DC. The last thing we need is some entrenched politico who lives and breathes the ethos of Chicago two-bit politics.
The most lively conspiracy theorists will see today’s appellate court decision as a dark-handed attempt to influence the outcome of the mayoral race and to prevent democracy from working. They may not be far off the mark, but that would be giving too much credit to those who are working to undermine the system. Those seeking to have Emanuel removed from the ballot are not capable enough to engineer such a surprising and arrogant decision as handed down by two of three appellate judges. The dissenting judge’s comments speak volumes (see link, pp. 25 on): “The majority’s new standard is ill-reasoned and unfair to the candidate, voters and those of us who are charged with applying the law [and] disenfranchises not just this particular candidate but every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him.” Even those seeking Emanuel’s removal from the ballot were surprised by the decision. Bad judicial decisions generally are surprising. Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times agree.
The good news is that Mr. Emanuel is not quitting. He still plans on participating in an upcoming debate, and he has asked the Illinois Supreme Court for an emergency stay to prevent the printing of ballots without his name. He will fight unfairness with his bare knuckles if he has to. Frankly, that is why he should be mayor. Hopefully his ongoing efforts will upend the sleazy tactics of those around him. Maybe one day we will get the full story behind this challenge to Mr. Emanuel’s candidacy. In short, it is democratic cowardice, brought upon those who can muster neither the votes not the money to win fairly. Certainly, it was not simply a lawyer and his two clients labeled as “concerned citizens.” Chicago politics are too rough-and-tumble to believe that.
There are likely multiple reasons why MSNBC unceremoniously dumped Mr. Olbermann so suddenly: disagreements with management; Olbermann’s suspension late last year over his political contributions to Democratic candidates; the imminent take-over of NBC Universal by Comcast; even, possibly, that Olbermann’s ratings were in danger of upset by his own popular MSNBC colleagues, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell.
The list could probably go on. Officially, Comcast denies that Mr. Olbermann was dumped due to any of its influence, but it seems too much of a coincidence that the firing occurred so close to the announcement of the US government approval of the merger.
Maybe Mr. Olbermann’s ungracious fall is all related to the recent criticism of the pugilistic and rhetoric-driven nature of “opinion TV,” a negative light brought about by – among other events – Jon Stewart’s recent Rally to Restore Sanity and the horrific events in Tucson. Not likely, but one could hope. Other than the few moments when the hot rhetoric cooled off a bit after Tucson, we fully expect the negativity on the airways to continue and to generate high ratings on network and cable television. In an interesting twist, it was a political contribution to Ms. Giffords that resulted in Mr. Olbermann’s suspension last year.
So, we are left to ruminate and speculate about what happened at MSNBC and what is next for the TV personality. Mr. Olbermann has been prevented from speaking publicly about the ouster, and he has some restrictions as to what he can do next (ala Conan O’Brien deal with NBC).
Despite the tone of my earlier post about MSNBC, there was value to having Mr. Olbermann spouting his view on television every night. My whole point was that MSNBC should not pretend that they are too much different from Fox News. Just as the conservatives, Tea Partiers and other assorted characters need their daily dose of Hannity, Beck and Palin, it is important for the Left to have its own fighters and opinion-hawkers. MSNBC provided a strong balance. While CNN is often accused of being in service to the Left, their valiant – but unsuccessful – attempt to claim the Middle is very clear when you place the three networks together. Just look at the MSNBC line-up – Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow and O’Donnell. Talking about the “Lefty” assault brigade! But that was the whole point, right (or Left)? MSNBC ratings sky-rocketed the more opinionated its programs became. No surprise, reports are that Lawrence O’Donnell will take over the “Countdown” slot for MSNBC with his own program, “The Last Word.” No word yet of any other changes at MSNBC.
So what about Mr. Olbermann? Although he was a necessary defender of all things liberal, he too often came across as arrogant, spiteful and obsessed. Like too many other TV opinion-makers, he focused too many assaults on his competitors in the media. Sometimes it sounded like no more than a fearful rant against people with higher ratings. Every week that went by seemed to have Mr. Olbermann carrying on-and-on about Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity or one of the other Fox News commentators. That turned really old, really quickly. Viewers of Mr. Olbermann’s show already knew the deficiencies of the Fox News line-up; they did not need the constant reminders. True liberal commentary is much better spent on addressing topics of policy, politics and human rights. We want to hear about what the government is or is not doing for the people of this country; not who over at Fox was the most senseless of the bunch. Maybe it helped his ratings, but Mr. Olbermann did a disservice to the liberal agenda by focusing on the people rather than the policies.
Good riddance, yes – but come on back when you are ready to fight the good fight.
Update (1/23/2011): another article on what lead to the divorce from MSNBC…he was apparently a pain in the tuches…what a surprise!
Update (1/24/2011): a blog post that really tries to differentiate MSNBC, specifically Mr. Olbermann, from Fox, specifically Glenn Beck. Even though the post is full of way too many parenthetical comments (really), the blog post is a good one. However, the poster still gives too much credence to the concept that Mr. Olbermann’s were always based on facts and Mr. Beck’s never are based on reality. Both commentators mix truth and opinion too closely together. That said, I would absolutely agree that Mr. Olbermann is no Glenn Beck.
Well, Illinois continues to be at the forefront of the news, albeit the part of the news that you want to avoid. Budget deficit. Crushing debt. Crumbling pension system. Bankruptcy?? The Land of Lincoln, home of the Daleys, the City of Big Shoulders and Caterpillar? Say it ain’t so!
Sadly, it is so.
Two recent articles highlight Illinois’s ongoing issues, as related to my original post:
The deficits will continue, despite the ongoing embarrassment. Granted, the current governor in Illinois is hobbled by years of mismanagement not of his making, but Mr. Quinn will need to continue to look for a long-term solution to our issues. Of course, making that “temporary” tax increase will be the first step. 🙂 It is somewhat relaxing to see that Illinois has had some of the lowest income taxes across the country (see graphic below), so it is about time we caught up?
With a more frightening prospect, we now hear about a movement by which states might be able to claim bankruptcy. Huh? Just so that a state can avoid pension obligations? This would be bringing the worst of corporate culture to an institution (state government) that has long prided itself on being different from a corporation. Any person in the state that is tied to a public pension should begin to worry. Those pensions, while maybe overly generous, have always been a source of stability for state workers. Keep in mind that state pensioners (like teachers) were never obligated to contribute to Social Security precisely because the pension was their retirement nest-egg. If the pension must be adjusted, it should be for state employees entering the system today, not 20 years ago.
[following was posted on Jan 18]
According to a recent editorial in the New York Times, the State of Illinois has “awoken” to its fiscal mess. How so? By raising state income taxes by 66%, and passing a significant increase in the corporate tax. According to the editorial, Illinois has finally come up with a plan to help reduce its deficits and to close the budget gap. The deficit has been projected to be about $15 billion in the next fiscal year, but the “temporary” tax increase will reduce that deficit by only about $7 billion. Across the nation, Illinois is held up as a major financial basket-case, so something needed to be done. Yes, something needed to be done. Of course, how are we going to close the budget gap even further? More taxes?
Citizens – both private and corporate – are outraged for sure, but the investors who track the fiscal stability of states see this move as very positive, and trumpet it as a signal of the creditworthiness of Illinois. Wow, how different can be the perspectives of those paying the taxes and those making money by lending even more money to the State?
Of course, nobody believes that this tax increase will be “temporary.” The last time Illinois raised income taxes, in 1989, the increase was supposedly temporary – until 1993 when all was made permanent. So, let’s call a spade a spade...it will be permanent. Granted, taxes had not been raised since the late 1980s, and our taxes remain below some of the states that have criticized our tax increase (New Jersey and Wisconsin). Nevertheless, such an abrupt and large tax raise gets one pretty excited. After all, the lack of tax increases has been easily rectified by the raising of every fee imaginable (multiple times) in Illinois. So, the State has received its fair share even without the income tax. But, what has the Land of Lincoln done with my taxes and fees?
Now, I am the first to support taxation and reasonable state and federal use of those taxes. In fact, I am likely a more strident proponent of taxation than your average American. Aside from all of the inevitable government waste that worries me about the destination of my taxes, I believe strongly that our governments in the United States need sufficient taxation to support the services that we all require. While some need unemployment support and welfare, I need roads, fire, police, schools and the military.
In an effort to make us feel better, the Democrats in the Illinois legislature passed a restriction that will potentially eliminate the tax increase if the state surpasses its self-imposed spending caps. If the budget rises more than 2% per year over the next few years, the State may rescind the tax increase. Sorry, but how come I do not believe this will happen?
But when are the true budget cuts going to happen, and from where are they coming? The Democrats in the legislature claim that they will make the budget cuts necessary, but can we really expect Michael Madigan to faithfully make that happen? He has been there for too long, and he has overseen this mess as much as the two disgraced former Governors Ryan and Blagojevich.
This State needs leadership. Quinn is not it, and the Republicans have been unable to field a true leader. What will Illinois do?
I am all for people making a buck, but this was simply a scam to provide the already-wealthy with yet another advantage over everyone else. Good thing the SEC took a look at it…happy my taxes are hard at work at least this time! Of course, now we have to wonder who will represent all of the foreign money that capitalizes on FB’s uber marketing machine….
I almost felt as if it was not worth my time to post anything about the latest news around the Arizona shootings. As stated in a previous post, I made the case that rather than hammering each side about the cause of the event, we ought to be tracking the progress and challenges of Rep. Giffords’s recovery from traumatic brain injury. After all, her recovery will mirror the challenges associated with the recovery of the war wounds of our soldiers. However, as expected, the uncontrollable need for politicians to open their mouths on any issue has inevitably lead to more intellectual nonsense and non-sequitor arguments. The political commentary on the Right and the Left has been quick to show us how shallow is that commentary, and Sarah Palin’s reaction to it was again a reminder about how unprepared she is to be our leader in any sense.
Ms. Palin’s comments are well-known by now, and her use of the term “blood libel” has been roundly criticized. However, a sensible review of the situation leads us to believe that, while her use of the term was ill-advised, Ms. Palin did not commit an outright act of anti-Semitism. Of course, she does not deserve to lead this country, or even a congressional district within it, but she does have the right to voice her opinion. We may not like it, but does she like what we say?? Let the voters decide her fate, and let common sense eventually rule the day. Until then, let’s mourn the dead and hope for a speedy recovery of the wounded.
The less we pay attention to Ms. Palin, the faster she will fade into the ether with her shallow banter and one-track commentary. American history has had plenty of Palins, but they have never been named Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan or Clinton. She will go away. SO will her bulls-eyes.
Posted by Matt S 
Status Mundi 
