« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

March 25, 2008

JUST THE FACTS, MAM

It is interesting how many people, men and women alike, blame Hilary Clinton’s problems on one of two issues: woman bias or being a “strong” woman.

The first issue blamed is an overall “woman bias” But looking closely, Hillary has not achieved anything extraordinary except to be a woman in the running for President. Her record as First Lady and as a Senator is acceptable but certainly not outstanding. She is intelligent but not brilliant and sometimes seems lacking in discernment and judgment. So what, other than her gender and the “it’s time for a woman“ climate, has brought her to this position? It appears that perhaps Christine Ferraro’s chain of thought applies more to Hillary than Barack Obama

The second often blamed issue is resentment of Hillary because she is a “strong” woman. But what do people mean when they say that? Could they be confusing ambition with strength? Are they just parroting something they’ve heard? What are the signs of her strength? There has been evidence of whining more than once during her campaign and strong women don’t whine. She stood by her man when his philandering became public but that was simply a choice, not proof or disproof of strength. Many strong women would have felt they deserved better and said bye, bye.

As a woman of an age that placed me squarely in the middle of the fight for equal rights in the business world, I am fully aware of the problems of woman bias and have suffered my share of consequences for being considered a strong woman. But rather than bringing me to agreement, my experience causes me to dismiss these issues as the explanation for Hillary’s lack of popularity.

It seems more likely that Hillary’s problems lie with her personality and character. Bill Clinton has skated through many situations because he has a winning personality – lots of charm and a warm and personable appearance. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn’t have this advantage. She comes across as stiff, and has a tendency to sound abrasive when trying to appear tough. In the character department, both the Clintons seem wanting. But in a sad commentary on our society, people seem more inclined to overlook that lack in Bill because of his personality.

Hillary Clinton may be the first viable woman presidential candidate but she will not be the last. To support her just because she is a woman is a disservice to women everywhere. There have been female leaders in other countries - women of character and strength. We can afford to wait until we are sure we have found a woman with those qualities. It seems prudent to leave Hillary’s gender out of the equation and pay more attention to her character and past record when considering her qualifications for president.

When we inaugurate our next president, we will have lived through 20 years of administrations that did not value truth and did not work for the common good. This time let’s choose a leader we can trust.

March 17, 2008

How long does it take to say "Stop doing that now"?

Apparently three years and counting.

Three years ago, Justice Department Inspector General, Glenn Fine, reported on the FBI’s abuse of national security letters. These letters, a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors, reached a total of 140,000 requests over the period of 2003 to 2005. In his report Fine stated numerous instances of FBI personnel violating internal guidelines and procedures in how they obtained and used national security letters.

Despite his report and the subsequent Congressional involvement the abuses of this secret investigative tool continued in 2006. In a new report this past week; Inspector Fine concluded the continued abuse was in part because of “shoddy record keeping and poor oversight” which have gone uncorrected. Even the Justice Department and FBI reforms implemented last year do not guarantee correction of all the issues uncovered in the original investigation. Fine states:

“The FBI and Department of Justice have shown a commitment to addressing these problems. However, several of the FBI’s and the Department’s corrective measures are not yet fully implemented and it is too early to determine whether these measures will eliminate the problems with the use of these authorities.”

So what exactly does that mean?

First the FBI and DOJ “…have shown a commitment to addressing these problems.” That’s a pretty innocuous statement. It gives lip service to doing something without a concrete pledge of doing anything particular. And apparently in the past three years they haven’t done anything particular.

Next is the statement: “…corrective measures are not yet fully implemented…” What kind of organization cannot, in three years, manage to get its employees to abide by its own internal guidelines and procedures? How about announcing a zero tolerance policy that starts immediately?

And last but not least, “…it is too early to determine whether these measures will eliminate the problems.” After three years, these measures that aren’t fully implemented may not even work when they are. Is this the kind of planning we pay our government agencies to do?

So what this statement seems to mean is, there is no real desire to correct this abuse. Could it be that all this - making mealy mouthed statements about commitment to handling the problem while very slowly implementing changes that may not even fix it - is just a way to run out the clock?

If we have people working for government agencies as big and powerful as the FBI and the DOJ who can’t understand, “Stop doing that now” … or who understand it but refuse to do it… then our government is out of control.

March 08, 2008

PEOPLE! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STINK

If we want more of what we have had for the past 15 years, all we need to do is nominate Hillary Clinton to run against John McCain. Election of either of these candidates assures that business as usual will continue.

If we want real change, we have the opportunity for that in Barack Obama. But to realize this chance, we have to repudiate the smear tactics now in full force against him. We have repeatedly allowed ourselves to be influenced by rumors and gossip. Remember the attacks and accusations - against John McCain in the 2000 primary and against John Kerry in the 2004 election, just to name two – that manipulated voters even though the so called facts were patently false? We are way past the “fool me twice” stage and into the “now we’re just plain stupid” stage if we let this happen again.

The Washington insiders were caught off-guard by Obama’s ability to raise huge amounts from small donors thereby avoiding the usual octopus grip special interests have on potential candidates. As reported by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews.com:

This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama… lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries (realize)… It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible….So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”
(Read entire article at http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022608.html )

It is up to the American people to let the power brokers know that it will not work this time; that we do not want them to control our elected officials; that we have had our fill of dirty tricks, dirty politics and the greed that is destroying our country from within.

If you need more convincing about the strangle-hold these people have on our lives, take a few minutes to read some of the following articles that deal with the causes and effects of the current housing crisis, our failing economy, and incompetent and corrupt government agencies.

http://www.solari.com/blog/?p=501 Where’s the Money? Let’s Get It Back!
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/S00223_collateral.htm Where’s The Collateral?
http://whereisthemoney.org/collateral_II.htm So, where is the collateral?
http://www.dunwalke.com/gideon/privatization030402.html Transcript:Greg Palast interview by Alex Jones

We cannot afford to be willfully uninformed. The future of our country depends on us.