http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/index.php http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/interface/feed.png http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/index.php Copyright 2010, Joplin Globe webadmin@joplinglobe.com (Joplin Globe) en-US SPHPBLOG 0.4.5 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/index.php?entry=entry090919-102454
How soon we forget.

Today Hannity and Beck are all over the politics of members of the President’s advisors that reflect left, even radical left views. Conservatives of all manner go “cluck, cluck” over the “outrage” of such folks having the ear of the President.

Does anyone remember the utter disdain for Presidential “advisors” including his Vice President who was at least elected to office during the Bush years?

There were neo conservatives buried all over Washington in sensitive positions of influence if not real power. I heard a lot of rumbling over this issue from the left but not the “roar” now coming from the right over Eric Holden, Van Jones and others.

No doubt, Obama is showing his “true” colors in selecting such men and women to serve at his side. So did Bush.

Did anyone with a political brain think that President Obama was going to govern from the middle or even close to it? If you did, do you now consider yourself naïve?

The problem is that there was not a choice in the last election. It was going to be essentially business as usual from the right or “change” from the left. Both sides said it in clear terms and Americans made their choice, rather convincingly.

Bottom line is elections indeed have consequences. When we as Americans are casual in casting our votes or do not carefully listen and think about the consequences we have no one to blame but ourselves.

But then again Americans don’t do that very well. We all want to blame someone else. Does anyone really think that Bush “caused” the economic crash in 08 or that Obama has made it worse?

The current economy is the consequence of choices Americans have been making as a nation over at least a few decades. Irresponsibility has consequences as well as elections, in my humble opinion.
]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/?entry=entry090919-102454 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:24:54 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/comments.php?y=09&m=09&entry=entry090919-102454 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/index.php?entry=entry090917-150135
Domestic issues prevail in our headlines, editorials and blogs for now. But Afghanistan and Iran are still there and getting worse. What in history provides any guidance as we as a nation faces the foreign as well as domestic challenges of today is the subject of this blog.

Was it in the best interests of the American Colonies to go to war with Great Britain in the American Revolution? In hindsight the answer is unequivocally, yes. Had a poll been taken in the colonies just prior to the war, I wonder what the results might have been. There were many passionate Tories around in those days.

How about the War of 1812? After all it was primarily because Great Britain was stealing sailors off of American ships. Sad for the sailors for sure, but was it worth having the White House burned to the ground or the thousands of deaths?

How about going to war with Mexico. Were we simply “remembering the Alamo” for our Texas brethren or undertaking death and destruction for a true national need?

Anyone care to guess about the poll results just before the southern states seceded from the Union or even after the shots were fired on Fort Sumter? Should we have fought the Civil War or was there a better way to have resolved the issues of slavery and state’s rights?

Should Teddy Roosevelt and his rough riders have charged up San Juan Hill even after the sinking of the Maine?

Were we correct in delaying our entry into the First World War? Should we have entered such a war at all? Certainly the Kaiser was nothing like Hitler. What if we had just stayed out of WWI altogether?

Again in WWII, was lend-lease the “right” thing to do for America and the world at that moment in time? Or instead should we have been there with “boots on the ground” at Dunkirk? Had we been there would Dunkirk even have happened in the first place or would Hitler have been defeated early on and thus saving millions of lives?

Proceeding on into the Cold War, should our “police action” in Korea been undertaken in the first place? Certainly our emerging policy of containment was challenged by North Korea and later China. But so what? It was simply a policy with no direct threat to the US had it failed, or at least some said that? Given the unfolding events on the battlefield, how would the world be different today if MacArthur had
been permitted to use nuclear weapons against Red Chinese forces north of the Yalu River in Korea?

All of those discussions and arguments were heated and loud at the time of all of the above wars. They are now history as we say but for sure were real at the time. What if anything, using the benefit of hindsight would we do differently then?

Now we move into the “modern” era of war with many still alive that participated in all the pros and cons of recent wars. History is certainly being “unkind” to the Vietnam War. Up to that time it was the first war that America “lost”. There is an emerging historical consensus that we should never have been there in the first place and certainly never gone in with “both feet” after the Gulf of Tonkin. Did President Johnson lie about that incident? Many think he did
.
Next we move to the First Gulf War. Few today argue against our going into combat with Iraq in that “war”. Many argue that we did not do enough at the time and should have marched on Baghdad when we had the chance. I personally discount that argument. We would have found ourselves in the same mess that we incurred 10 or so years later after occupying the entire country of Iraq. The Shiites and Sunnis were there both times. Even Al Qaeda was alive and well at the time.

Now here we are on some kind of a path to disengage and leave Iraq and still up to our necks in combat in Afghanistan. In both cases the polls are generally the same. Get out now and bash the hell out of anyone that got us there in the first place. I suppose polls in 1944 would have advocated the same cries of “get out now” had the Normandy Invasion been repulsed in its initial attempts as well.

To me there is a pattern of a historical nature here in this brief review. At the time of any war engaged by the United States there were many that opposed it. In almost every case, once the war is in the history books the at least historical popularity of the war is enhanced. The one exception is of course Vietnam and we lost that war so of course we should not have “started” it in the first place. Only winners of war think they were a good idea.

So the first conclusion is never go to war unless you are absolutely sure that you are going to win it. That in essence is the Powell Doctrine, put overwhelming force and technology at the point of attack and then win it, “damnit”. Remember folks, Bush had around an 80% approval rating in the polls when we invaded Iraq. At least in terms of current popularity he is criticized for not winning the war in Iraq quickly enough.

Remember watching TV views of the massive bombardment of the Torah Bora in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11? Even the most hard line Democrat did not cringe at those pictures at the time. Eight years later the scenes from Afghanistan remind us of Vietnam. And remember folks, support at home is at least as important as the technology that we employ on any battlefield in a democracy.

Finally, I bring up the subject of the now unspoken War on Terror. I find nothing in our history to guide us in that effort. Keeping Iran non-nuclear is part of that effort but not all of it.

So now what are we supposed to do and how will history judge us (not just the President.)? We are all in this together.
]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/?entry=entry090917-150135 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:01:35 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/comments.php?y=09&m=09&entry=entry090917-150135 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/index.php?entry=entry090917-091116
Squirrels like acorns, do you?

No, I am not trying to provoke the left with that first question. Actually, I have a lot of questions myself on both sides of this issue with the community organizing group called Acorn. I will list a few of them as follows:

1. Do 5 (or more) “sneak” interviews make an entire organization corrupt? If no how many would it take?
2. Should the government immediately move to investigate in detail the financial underpinnings of Acorn based almost exclusively on these scandalous interviews? If not, why?
3. Has Fox News, which along with right wing radio has provided extensive coverage of these tapes, been of service to Americans in doing so?
4. Where in the world is the main stream media in all of this, particularly network TV news? Are or should they be embarrassed?
5. Is this indeed a real political scandal of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater proportions or is it simply more trumped up politics from the extreme right wing looking for any leverage they can find?
6. The timing of these tapes coincidental with the huge health care debate is deeply suspicious to me. Is this a right wing attempt to deflect attention and thus stall that debate?
7. Is this issue racism in its worst form? On one hand you have a predominately black organization crying foul against a predominately white onslaught. What would it be like if the “color” of the two sides was reversed?

I could go on of course, but I provide the above simply to try to sort out in my own mind where I stand on this issue. I am in no way ready to launch a diatribe even against Acorn, much less the President at this point.

I am convinced that the Acorn issue (is scandal too strong a word for now?) needs thorough “vetting” at the national level. I think my personal concerns are to at least consider a “Special Prosecutor” for that task. I do not have the confidence that Attorney General Holder and “his” justice department are up to the task. There is simply too much bias there. I also sure do not trust Fox News and Limbaugh to be left as the arbiters of American opinion for the vast majority of our citizens.

There is a parallel with the health care, cap and trade, global warming and “stimulus” debate ongoing and the Acorn issue. Where and what is the truth in all of this. Sitting at my computer with the online world at my feet and information age technology enabling me to “reach out” almost anywhere, I do not now have the slightest idea how to find the “truth” before taking a hard position one way or the other on any of those issues.

And that my friends and detractors is the heart of the matter. How do any of us find the truth before launching our opinions? Above all else, I think that is fundamental to American anger, distrust, rhetoric, tea parties, counter demonstrations, you name it. We are all flailing around in a dangerous and confusing world.

We wanted the new President to sort it all out for us. In my view he is trying but has failed to do so thus far. And for sure the far right is no help in this matter nor is the far left.
]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/?entry=entry090917-091116 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:11:16 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/comments.php?y=09&m=09&entry=entry090917-091116 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/index.php?entry=entry090911-105341
I am so outraged by an online comment in today’s Globe in response to a Voices letter “Remembering 9/11” that I can hardly type this blog. I hope you share the same outrage regardless of your political affiliation. The comment as posted is as follows:

Farmer Ted writes:
Who cares? It happened thousands of miles away from here. This area was never in any danger. And nothing like that is going to happen around these parts. So why should any of us give a care?

I have no idea who “Farmer Ted” may be and really don’t want to know. His words speak for themselves. I pray that he is really unique and reflects only his own warped view. Sometimes, reading online comments, I wonder however.

I am glad the Globe published the comment. It deserves wide distribution and all the exposure possible. It reflects the darkest possible side of ills in our society. It is a society, for some, of “meism”, what do I get out of anything, why should I care, inhumanity, pure, reckless stupidity and the list goes on and on in my view.

I hope that our community rises is pure outrage at Farmer Ted. I hope he is able to realize the degeneracy of his words. I hope he hangs his head in shame.

I have challenged Duane in his quest for humanity in matters political. I now join the crusade myself in this case.

Why should we care about thousands that died with no choice on 9/11? Why should we care about the masses that have volunteered to serve (read today’s editorial) and died or been grievously wounded since then? How can anyone even think to ask such a question is my response? It is so far beyond the pale of human consideration that I can do little but feel outrage and real confusion.

I hope Farmer Ted’s words are emblazoned in signs at the next Tea Party, held up to ridicule on TV, given the widest possible exposure for the depths of depravity shown in what he wrote.

DESPICABLE is too mild a word.
]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/?entry=entry090911-105341 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:53:41 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/comments.php?y=09&m=09&entry=entry090911-105341 http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/index.php?entry=entry090909-132932
I am simply disgusted with the no holds barred, all or nothing approach to arguments on health care, are you?

Doing nothing or doing something creating yet more debt is not the answer in my view. We must do something to “pick up” the uncovered yet do it within our income limits, nationally and individually. I am willing to “give up” some that I have. Are you? I am also unwilling to pay for a “no load” that can afford insurance but opts for nice cars, multiple TVs, etc all the usual accoutrements of today’s society.

Mutually shared sacrifice is the answer in my view.

I have probably the best possible health care insurance today. I am 67 years old and thus covered by Medicare. As a retired member of the military all costs not reimbursable (20%) by Medicare are covered by my military coverage. I pay $90 a month deducted from Social Security to “pay” for Medicare.

Now for starters, I will argue with great conviction that I “earned” every cent of my coverage. Among other things I was underwater about 7 years in submarines just as an example. I am also not “rich”. But I do fall into the income range where many dwell (over $50K per year) that choose not to pay for health care insurance at all. I am willing to “give up” some of my coverage to provide health care for those that really need it. We have a wonderful lady that occasionally cleans for us. She of course has no coverage and desperately needs it. I would be more than willing to “give” her some of my insurance.

As an entering argument, I firmly believe that health care must be mandatory for all. Even as a conservative writer I fully support penalties by law (fines that hurt) for anyone that does not obtain coverage. At least when I give up some of my benefits I have some confidence (though not a lot) that no loads refusing to pay up will get their penalties.

Until meaningful tort reform accompanies health care reform I will also be reluctant to “give up” very much. I simply rebel at thinking that my money in taxes and or fees would line the pockets of lawyers and plaintiffs “gaming” the system or for doctors that don’t perform at some minimal required level, understandable to all of us. National standards of care regulated by the government is needed thus taking the mystery out of malpractice. Severe penalties for “frivolous” law suits is also needed.

How much each of us might be compelled to “give up” should be regulated by the government by means testing. The rich pay a lot, the destitute pay nothing and the great majority in between give up something which they already have. It is as simple as that. Senator Baucus seems to be headed in the right direction considering means testing as a multiple of the poverty level of income. There may be other metrics as well. Let’s discuss them then all of us in the middle dig deep and contribute.

In the end the only folks “getting” anything out of reform should be those that are truly destitute and now have nothing. Only American citizens please. Let’s take care of our own before worrying about the others that come here legally or illegally.

I of course would love to see my benefits “grandfathered” such that I keep what I earned over a lifetime of work. But I doubt that we can afford to do that. Same with Social Security but that is a different argument.

So folks, I am willing to dig really deep to do the “humane” thing. Are you?
]]> http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/?entry=entry090909-132932 webadmin@joplinglobe.com Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:29:32 GMT http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/anson/comments.php?y=09&m=09&entry=entry090909-132932