I'm Concerned. Are You?

I’m very concerned. It seems like every day something weird is happening in my country’s government. I mean, weird stuff happens all the time, but this is beyond what we’re used to. Here’s what I’m talking about.

Rep. Rangle wants a free pass on a severe ethics violation. If you don’t want to be known as corrupt, Mr Rangle, don’t act corrupt. Instead of apologizing for your illicit activities and paying the price, which very well might be the removal of your power, you “cut a deal,” thereby spreading your corruption to the entire ethics committee. Richard Nixon welcomes you home.

President Obama “appoints” the new health czar. Normally these appointments go through Congress, but he bypasses that little tiny step. “The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.” His reasoning was that Republicans would stop the nomination. First, that makes no sense because Republicans are the minority. Second, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Find someone everyone can be pleased with.

Elena Kagan is even considered as a Supreme Court Judge. First of all, never been a judge. She’s the Dean of a College and the Inspector General. When John Roberts was nominated there was concern because he’s supposedly a conservative, but at least he stated that his job was to be an “impartial umpire.” Kagan has stated that she will rule however she wants. Law Schmaw. I know we don’t like to say this, but that opinion is wrong.

Democrats take the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They fail to repeal both No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, which they screamed so loudly about during Bush’s reign. This became a lot less surprising when they included features in the Healthcare bill and in the Financial Reform bill that involve more privacy intrusions than the Patriot Act ever had. Outstanding, people! You’ve proven that all you want is power.

Maybe it’s a scratch-my-back issue. If you don’t repeal the crap the Republicans passed, then they agree not to repeal the crap the Democrats pass.

The Federal government sues Arizona. This reminds me of a story. Once a man had a daughter who was raped every day for a week. On the eighth day she slapped the man who raped her. The father stood up and yelled at his daughter, “Stop that! That’s my job!” I just don’t see how the Federal government can react in any way but to hang its head in shame for failing so dramatically. They are supposed to be the pillar of our freedom, a body built to unify Americans under one head. Instead they are acting in the most divisive way possible to prolong the problem without a solution.

Former Illinois Governor Blogojovich is being tried for corruption. While it is very important that he receive a fair trial and that he be allowed to present his defense, there’s no doubt what the verdict should be. Fair doesn’t mean he has a 50/50 shot of getting off, it means he’s treated with dignity as he goes down the toilet. Power and money seems to buy a lot of strange verdicts.

I am very concerned. I have been for a while, but the irresponsibility is reaching a very shrill pitch. I want us to find solutions, even if it means not advancing agendas. I, along with 86% of Americans who disapprove of Congress, am feeling very frustrated.

Politicians Kill Metaphors

Perhaps what we really need is a Constitutional amendment stating that if a politician ever waxes poetic they get booted out of office instantly. Somehow, the humanistic arts, benevolent shows of creativity and wit, get twisted into campaign dramas. It just isn’t right.

So some clown called Boehner who, according to wikipedia, actually passed his name on to his children, rose up to occupy a high Republican pedestal on account of all the other Republican politicians were smart enough to keep clear of it. And this guy makes some remark that the stimulus money is like killing an ant with a nuclear bomb. See what I mean, this is poetry to these guys. Blunt, crass, and inappropriate. Should be booted.

But before we boot him let’s consider his metaphor for a moment. Stimulus packages from all origins over the past five years were a poor idea to fix a natural problem that plunged us into worse debt than we have ever known. Killing an ant with a nuclear bomb would be a waste of expensive material, cause more harm than good, and the same effect could be accomplished by letting the ant walk into a field of Off Chalk.

Maybe my original analysis was wrong. Blunt and crass, sure, but perhaps more appropriate than we all thought.

But my eyeing his metaphor critically is hardly overreacting, that’s just what I do.

What would be overreacting? Remember, this is a politician speaking, and no matter who you are, there is always someone to stomp. So Barack Obama, whose dignity always falls second to his opportunism, picks up these words and turns them into a bat with which to swat at a high-ranking member of the opposition party.

Can you believe it? he says, This Republican thinks that the economic crisis is an ant. A tiny little ant. How out of touch can he be? He must not understand you people, like I understand you. This metaphor demonstrates that my policies are superior because I can use someone else’s words against them.

And for a moment, Carl Rove smiled.

It was one thing when a Republican conceived of an ill metaphor. It was another when the President took that metaphor and made everyone dumber.

Do you really think the Republican thinks the economic crisis is the size of an ant? Or did it simply fit his comparison well? Do you think he’s out of touch? Any more out of touch than you or anyone else in Washington? I’ll tell you who’s out of touch, and that’s anyone letting this President do their thinking for them.

I hope there are so many more bad examples of this so that when someone intelligent pops up, we won’t even hear the brainless attacks against them.

Oil Spill

Normally over a big news-making thing like BP’s oil spill in the gulf, I’d make a big deal out of it pretty quickly. It’s been months and this is the first I’ve written about it. The reason is that it makes absolutely no sense to me. I have too many questions to say anything intelligent. For instance:

Why is oil “gushing?” Why isn’t it sitting in the ground? Are the pumps still on? It seems to be exerting a lot of effort to push its way into all five thousand feet of heavy water sitting on top of it. I don’t understand.

Why can’t people help? Why are entities that aren’t necessarily BP or Barack Obama forbidden to do things? There are great ideas and enough at stake that the private sector could come up with a lot of money to do them. Why isn’t that allowed?

Why did environmentalists think that drilling at five thousand feet was a better idea than one thousand feet? Why aren’t they taking any heat for their legislation?

Is it really that hard to plug a leak? It’s giving us a hundred thousand barrels of oil each day, let’s see what a couple thousand barrels of cement could do.

How is it nobody stepped up until the leak had been going for a month? Does no one with power care? What do the powers-that-be stand to gain from this?

Can you really call it pollution when one natural substance infiltrates another natural substance, just because it’s unsightly?

A platform blows up, and a mile away a leak springs. This seems like it should be starring Bruce Willis or Harrison Ford, perhaps it should be directed by Michael Bay. This just doesn’t make sense.

Again, rehashing the point that BP somehow let it go on for months. How did they not jump on top of this problem immediately? How did they not have a contingency plan to cover this?

The word “crisis” just sued for abuse. It seems that it doesn’t like being used 24/7.

Hasn’t Louisiana suffered enough?

Anyway, you can appreciate that I am flabbergasted by the whole situation. If you’re not, please write in and help me figure it out, because we’ve taken more drastic measures for smaller problems. We invaded Afghanistan to find one dude. We spent more than our economy is worth to save it. Maybe I’ve finally figured out the hallmark of modern society: exhausting ourselves with minimal effect.

The Question: Expediancy or Principle?

In a long political career, a senator learns to bend with the wind. One who cannot be expedient will be ostracized by his fellow lawmakers and one who does not stand on principle is ousted by his constituents. I cannot say whether he is sincere or not, but today I appreciate and agree with Orrin Hatch.

Hatch, a Republican Senator from Utah, sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has participated in her hearing. Following is his statement in regards to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:

"I have carefully examined Solicitor General Elena Kagan's record, actively participated in the entire Judiciary Committee hearing, and considered the views of supporters and opponents from Utah and across the country. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.

"Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.

"Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration's extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

"As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.
"General Kagan is a good person, a skilled political lawyer, a brilliant scholar, and was a fine law school dean. I like her personally and I supported her to be Solicitor General. But applying the standard I have always used for judicial nominees, I cannot support her appointment to the Supreme Court."

I agree with every point Hatch makes in this statement. Her rejection of John Roberts' “objective umpire” idea makes her a very spooky appointment for the Supreme Court. Someone who wants to forward an agenda needs to run for Congress. Of course, to do so requires some charm, and as Kagan has exuded none of that, this appointment is her only chance at acquiring power.

My concern is that Hatch knows his constituents in Utah want to read exactly what he wrote. After his buddy Bennett was recently ousted by voters tired of soulless senators, Hatch's position is grim, so a loud pronouncement like this may bolster his support back home. Again, this statement may be about principle, but it could just as easily be his only chance to keep his power.