They Did What !

A little thing, at first glance, is the sudden over-use of the word robust: The UN issued a robust resolution; the US will have a robust response; politicians take robust actions or have robust reactions.

The Oxford Complete Word Finder lists robust (in the 4th definition as regards a statement, reply, etc.) as bold; firm; unyielding. Any of those words seem a better choice to describe a resolution, a response, an action or reaction. But suddenly, a word heretofore most commonly used in descriptions of a person’s physique or appetites, is applied to political actions.

Is there a person or persons somewhere in our government who spend their days producing lists of politically correct terms for use by politicians? Euphemisms that allow them to say something in such a vague way that they really can’t be accused of having said it.

Yes, diplomacy, (generally defined as using tact, discretion, delicacy, and courtesy), is a necessary part of governing. Still, don’t you wonder who is really fooled by the use of all these PC terms and what, in the end, they accomplish?

There are other descriptive words found in the definition of diplomatic such as wise, prudent, and perspicuous (clearly expressed) which seem more important but are mostly absent from current day diplomacy. Is it possible that things might actually improve if countries talked to each other in a courteous way using honest, straight forward words that clearly express their position?

For instance, we need oil, China needs oil, India needs oil, and so do all the other industrialized countries in the world. Everyone knows this, so why is it the last thing mentioned when we talk about what we are doing in the Middle East? Does anyone really believe that we would be involving ourselves in the governments of that part of the world if they didn’t have oil? And if we hadn’t been involving ourselves in their business for years, would they care about us? Do you know that as far back as FDR in 1945 we have been trying to gain control of oil in the Middle East (Just think where we might be with alternative energy sources if we had been concentrating on that since 1945!)? Do you really believe it is our freedom they hate? Or is it what we do with it – like trying to control their governments so we can control their oil?

Why doesn’t the free market theory apply to oil? They have it, we need it, and we compete with other countries for it. Openly and honestly compete for it. We could afford to do that if we were not spending billions of dollars trying to impose our beliefs, our way of life, on a country that isn’t ready for it and doesn’t want it, and in the process strengthening the belief in other Middle Eastern countries that we will come after them sooner or later.

Loving my country does not mean agreeing with everything the government does any more than loving my kids makes me blind to their faults. Good parenting requires consistency and vigilance, good citizenry requires that same watchfulness. Over indulgent, negligent parents produce willful, selfish children of weak character. Negligent citizens allow their government to become just as willful, selfish and lacking in character.

In May, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote an article in which he listed some of the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes including “excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.�

Recognize anything in that list that is happening in our country today?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

My confusion continues to grow about Muslim beliefs and the nature of their God. I recognize that there are extremists in their religion as there are in most religions and that they do not represent the majority. What is hard to understand is the silence of that majority in the face of the actions of the extremists.

A case in point is the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammed that were published earlier this year. The cartoons were offensive and publishing them showed poor judgment and a lack of respect for the beliefs of others. The Muslim response was riots worldwide. This response caused problems for people in countries that had nothing to do with the offending cartoons. But even that was not enough. There seemed to be a need for more payback, again, not against those who published the cartoons, but against the Jewish people.

An Iranian museum this week opened a display of more than 200 cartoons mocking the Holocaust. The display consists of the top cartoons submitted in a contest that will award a $12,000 prize to the winning cartoonist. Even when the contest was announced last February, it was obviously an inappropriate response for two reasons: the contest was aimed at someone other than the perpetrator of the offense it was supposedly responding to; it made the contest sponsors guilty of the same offense they were condemning.

If this contest and the resulting museum display do not represent the beliefs of most Muslims, then there should be an outcry from Muslims worldwide against it. If there isn’t, it makes them look as if they have become what they are fighting.

It is also confusing to continually hear statements that the Democratic Party is weak on security because they (generally) oppose the war in Iraq. There is not one iota of proof that the war in Iraq has made us safer and there are a lot of indicators that the opposite may be true. So if people believe the Democrats are weak on security, then they should be able to state reasons that actually back up that belief and quit trying to make apples equal oranges.

One of the most confusing things going on right now is the dance and dodge within the Democratic Party regarding their candidate for the 2008 election. It would seem logical at this point that the party would be concentrating on finding a candidate that can get elected. Instead, they seem to be considering two candidates with questionable elect-ability.

John Kerry and his supporters must have the mistaken idea that, because he ran a close race against Bush in 2004, he can change his campaign strategy a little (including a gag order for his wife) and win next time. The thing they seem not to be taking into account is how many of the votes Kerry got that were not really for him but simply votes against Bush. That will be a moot point in 2008.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters seem to think it is time for a woman president and she is the one. That may be so at some point but right now the “Love her� and the “Hate her� groups are pretty equal and in this particular race the Democrats cannot afford a candidate who is that much of a risk.

If the Democrats want to do more than spend another four years ranting and raving about how badly the Republicans are running the country, they need to get their act together. The party cannot allow the old guard to continue running things the way they have been and expect a different result (that definition of insanity just keeps popping up in today’s political world!). If the Democrats want to win, it might be a smart move to put aside business as usual and work to find a candidate who can actually win.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 02:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We will shortly be moving into the election cycle and maybe before we decide how to vote, we should ask ourselves some questions. We could start by taking a long look at the results of how we have been voting. We can continue to elect the people who tell us what we want to hear (how’s that working for us?), or we could start electing people who tell us the truth even when we don’t like what we hear - they are called “Leaders.�

Once we hear the truth, we could look at it from the big picture perspective of what is best for our country, our whole country and not just for our state, our local area, or our own personal interests. Whatever our political views, we are first and foremost Americans and the state of our country is of utmost concern to us all.

Throughout our history, Americans have shown a willingness to work for the common good. Now, at this troubled time in our history, it is important to understand what that greater good is. We don’t learn that listening to the news (whether Fox or CBS), or to politicians with a priority of getting re-elected who pander to local interests and special interests. What we get from these sources does not show that there is a big picture, much less what it is.

Let’s look at where we are - righteousness has been replaced with self-righteousness; we listen only to those who agree with us; venting our anger in vitriolic language has replaced honest debate; labeling and name calling are the order of the day; and truth has become as elusive as the fountain of youth. How did things get to this state?

Maybe through a lack of vigilance – allowing ourselves to be distracted by all the toys available, by all the sensationalistic stories that pass for news, by the half-truths and outright lies of elected officials treating us like children who cannot deal with the truth. Why shouldn’t they treat us like that? It works. We keep re-electing them don’t we?

Maybe by allowing ourselves to be sucked into the extremism of single issue voting - abortion, same sex marriage, the war. We will vote for a candidate who agrees with us on a single issue even if he is dishonest and incompetent. We will not vote for an able and honest candidate if he does not agree with us on a single issue, all the while declaring self-righteously that we are voting our values. Let's look at the result of this selective morality where we pick and choose which values to support and which to ignore. Are we satisfied with the government it has given us?

Maybe by allowing sound bites, PR companies, spin doctors, smear campaigns and special interests, to be the deciding factors in how we vote. Instead of insisting that candidates tell us the truth about their stand on the important issues facing our country, we allow them to side-step, double speak, and skirt these issues. We accept scripted debates, rigged Town Hall Meetings, and canned speeches as if they actually tell us something. They don’t. They are simply the products of those PR companies, spin doctors, and special interests. Why do we accept these tactics instead of demanding honest answers?

Even now, with scandals rife in politics at all levels, both Democrats and Republicans, just keep on with business as usual. Are we the people really so gullible, or so lazy, or so whatever it is that keeps us doing what we are doing, that we don’t realize the time has come to throw open our windows, stick our heads out and yell, “I’m madder than hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!�

If we truly want to vote our best interests, then we need to vote based on what is best for our country. We need elected officials who will trust us enough to help us see the truth of what that is. Surely most of us are mature enough, intelligent enough, and basically good enough to put aside our personal interests if we see that what benefits us will, in the long run, not be good for our country as a whole. When our country does well, we all do well. We need to elect officials who understand that and act accordingly. Or… we can keep doing what we have been doing and expect a different result (as we all know, that is the definition of insanity).

So… To be or not to be (sane)? That is the real question!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Usually I try to make my point with a little humor, but for some reason I can't find any humor in this one.

When Medicare Prescription coverage was first introduced, one of the recognized drawbacks was a provision in the bill that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices. For the pharmaceuticals, this was a good thing - for the drug plan subscribers, not so good.

In the first three months of Plan D, (January through March 2006), brand-name drug prices increased by an average of 3.9%. That is the highest first-quarter increase in the last six years and almost four times the rate of inflation.

All of Medicare’s leverage, considerable with the number of people signing up for Plan D, was just given away by the legislators. The leverage the Medicaid program had was also lost because all those people were transferred to Plan D. Now why would our legislators, charged with looking after our best interests, do something like that?

Do you suppose it could have anything to do with the drug industry lobbyists? Could there be a connection between that decision and pharmaceutical money that flows into political coffers?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One bit of nonsense that is all over the news (I use the term loosely) is about Mel Gibson getting arrested for DUI and spouting anti-Semitic sentiments. Shame on him for both offenses, but really, this is hardly worth such national news hoopla. Why the media frenzy? Have we, the public, really come to such a low state that we want this type of incident to be the leading item on our news broadcasts for several days? Maybe we can email our news outlets and let them know this isn’t the kind of news we are interested in. Do you suppose if we do this repeatedly we might even get the news organizations to stop acting like tabloids and go back to honest-to-goodness journalism. What a concept!

Another silly session showed Donald Rumsfeld, at his calm and sincere best, proclaiming that you can find different definitions for “civil war� but he certainly wouldn’t use that term to describe what is going on in Iraq. A lot of secular violence, yes, but not what he would call a civil war. Let’s just take a look at Donald’s record on his assessments of situations in Iraq: First were his adamant assertions that there were WMDs; then his dogged insistence that he knew best the number of troops needed to control the immediate aftermath of the invasion (just look how well that worked out!); and don’t forget the repeated denial of mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib; etc. etc. With a record like that, we surely wouldn’t question his new proclamation, now would we?

And then we have the story about President Bush’s absolute insistence that the promised hospital for children in Basra will be completed. Once again he seems undeterred by the facts. The building was supposed to be finished last December. However, between the contractor, Bechtel Corp. and the US Agency for International Development, the government agency managing the project, the entire $50 million budget for the project has been spent and the building is only 35% completed. I seem to remember the President making similar promises about the rebuilding of New Orleans and just look how well he followed through on that!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 07:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)