Hillary: Is She Da Bomb...or...Is the Bomb About to Fall on Her?

Hillary: Is She Da Bomb…or…Is the Bomb About to Fall on Her?  Hillary Clinton is an enigma to me.  Her public record clearly shows that she’s had problems telling the truth; almost to the point of being a congenital liar.  It seems at times that she will lie when telling the truth is easier to do.  On the other hand, one must acknowledge that she has been pretty successful in her life.  With the exception of the thrashing she took at the hands of Obama, she has proven to be very skillful at picking the right time and place to run for office.  What some might call devious and opportunistic, others may call genius.  I continue to be amazed at the broad and deep Democratic voter loyalty she engenders.  She has managed to cobble together a rather impressive resume of public experience.  Many in the media, both her allies and her critics, refer to her as an intelligent person.  Personally, I am not prepared to give her this crown.  The ability to succeed in the pursuit of power and fortune is not necessarily an indication of intelligence and we are all way too anxious to join these two traits in a seminal fashion.  In fact, Hillary’s wealth and power, and the manner in which she acquired them, might very well prove to be liabilities before this presidential campaign is over.  That, my friends, is what I dwell on at this time.

What are the chances that sometime before the Democrats officially select their 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will be indicted?  Six months ago, mentioning this possibility was laughable; today, not so much so.  I see three indicators that have raised the possibility of a Clinton indictment.  First, there is a silence that surrounds both the Congressional investigations into Hillary and the FBI investigation into her affairs.  One may argue that silence means there is nothing there and perhaps that is true.  On the other hand, many times silence can be more ominous than incessant chatter and that might just be the case this time.  Secondly, the trigger man in deciding whether or not Hillary skates or skews is James Comey.  Comey comes as close to being an objective, non-partisan, by the book, bureaucrat as exists in the Obama administration.  He has just as many Democrat hides on his wall as he does Republican.  In a very public fashion, he has demonstrated his political independence on several occasions and there is no reason, at this time, to doubt that he will go where the email trails lead him.  And finally, what exactly does Obama think of Hillary?  I have long been of the notion that Obama might not personally like her much, but would view her as the best option to preserve, at least in his mind, his presidential efforts.  At this late date in his tenure, with the public opinion of his performance settling in, I am no longer sure that there is very much of that legacy that Clinton could or would try to preserve.  If I am correct in this thinking and Obama comes around to this position, he might very well decide that history might be kinder to him with a Republican successor than with Hillary.   As is his wont, he would demonize and demagogue a Republican successor and continue his plea that all he accomplished was in spite of the Republicans and all that went wrong under his watch was because of the Republicans.  A Republican successor would allow him to continue that theme into his post-presidential era.  On the other hand, and if given the opportunity, Hillary would undoubtedly rework Obama’s initiatives; some with a tweak and some with a hammer.  Is her vision for America the same as his?  It is not out of reason to think he might prefer the clear foil of a conservative Republican president to that of a more traditional Democrat president.  I grant that this is entirely supposition and a high grade of supposition at that.  However, if it were to have a grain of truth, it might be the third factor that results in serious legal issues for Hillary in 2016.  There can be little doubt that even without influencing Comey, the Obama administration will have some effect on how the public image of Hillary is impacted by her 2016 adventures in justice. 

National polls consistently show that fully sixty percent of the public do not view Hillary as trustworthy.  Even though one would be a fool not to consider her political apparatus as formidable, that type of locked-in public perception will be extremely difficult to overcome.  Now the 2016 presidential election may be a technical one decided more by political metrics than by simple vote tallies and if so, Hillary could very well figure out a way to win this thing.  On the other hand, if sixty percent of folks don’t trust you now and the Republicans have yet to spend one dollar to encourage that notion, what will happen to her image when the attacks come?  And then, what would happen if Obama took a laissez faire approach to the FBI investigation of her and even worse, began to drop bread crumbs that lead down trails better left untraveled?

If Hillary were to be indicted, could Bernie end up being the Democrat’s Goldwater?  The 2016 Presidential election may already be engaged to a much greater degree than any of us realize; it might be the Republican presidential nominee primary. 

Erring On the Side of Simplicity.

Erring On the Side of Simplicity.  As we move inside the “one year to go mark” of our next presidential election, I am going to crawl out a bit further on the skinny limb and make a prediction or two.  If the last few elections have taught me anything at all, they have taught me that not only do I, an abject layman in politics, know nothing of national politics, but that professional journalists who follow national politics for a living don’t seem to know too much either.  Bottom line: there are damn few certainties as we look ahead to November of 2016 and anyone who pretends otherwise is rather foolish.  I now join that club.

I will submit for your consideration what I believe are the three politically-viable choices for our next President and the reasons you might choose each of them.  Those choices are Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio.  Now predicting Hillary as the Democratic nominee does not require a lot of courage.  Short of an indictment, she will be the candidate of choice for the Democrats.  And even though Cruz and Rubio are gaining strength in poll numbers, one would be very foolish to dismiss the outside chances of Kasich or Christie.  Yes, I am eliminating Trump and Bush at the outset; in spite of his continuing poll performance, I refuse to take Trump seriously.  Kasich and Bush rely on voters to select their candidates on the basis of performance, not appearance.  Unfortunately, that simply is not the way people select their public officials today.  Christie has not yet found his moment and time is wasting.   So…choose your poison.  And for what it’s worth, here is a guide to that choice.

There is no truth in Hillary; you cannot put any reliance whatsoever on what she says she believes or will do if elected President.  However, you can draw some conclusions based on what she has actually done in public office.  Hillary would, in effect, be a third term for Obama.  She is just as liberal, if not more so, than Obama and exceedingly more competent.  She would pursue many of the liberal (progressive??) goals that have been pursued by Obama, but I feel like she would be more successful.  Although it would clearly be contentious, I think her ability to work with a Republican Congress would yield far more results than that achieved by Obama’s administration.  I believe she would eschew the executive action proclivity set forth by Obama and tend towards a greater reliance on legislative results and appointees’ discretion.  No doubt, she would attempt to mold the nation in her image; but she would approach it more as an exercise in political competition rather than a religious pursuit.  I do not think Hillary would be as dead set on reforming this nation as has been Obama.  Like them or not, the bulk of her appointees would be competent; corrupt, but competent.  I don’t know about you, but give me bad policy administered competently over bad policy administered incompetently (Obama anyone??) any day of the week.  Hillary would likely preserve most of Obama’s domestic issues, including Obamacare.  Sure, it will be tweaked and revised; but hey…it was her brainchild to begin with!  Do you really think she will dump it?  Look for tax reform around the edges if Hillary is elected.  On foreign policy, Hillary would be more hawkish and frankly, more effective than Obama.  To be honest with you, all three of the candidates I will address will be more hawkish than I like, but such is life in today’s world.  So…if you like the way things stand right now on domestic issues, but would like to see a bit more effectiveness and efficiency in the way government runs, then Hillary might be your gal.  If you believe that Government is a solution to many of today’s problems and it should expand to address those and more, then Hillary is your choice.

Ted Cruz might just be the brightest candidate of the three I am addressing; one can easily see why he was a national debate champion.  He is a strong fiscal and domestic conservative, comfortably situated in the far right parlor of the Republican Party.  Here is what gives me pause about Cruz: He has trouble getting along with his own party in Congress; how could we expect him to get along with Democrats if he were President?  Now some would argue that is not a problem.  They might say that “compromise and business as usual” has gotten us where we are today.  They might say that the only way to begin to unwind the big, chaotic ball of twine that is the Obama legacy is to attack it the same way it was built; by autocratic rule and executive action.  One can never be sure what a candidate’s foreign policy will be, because few candidates have much experience in foreign policy.  We have a bit of a yardstick to use on Hillary, but none to use on Cruz or Rubio.  They are politicians, so their rhetoric has limited reliability.  Based on his words and votes, one could surmise that Cruz might be considerably more hawkish than Obama, but no more so (perhaps even less so) than Hillary.  However, there can be no question that when it comes to domestic policy, Cruz and Hillary are polar opposites.  Cruz wants to shrink government.  He wants to reduce the number of agencies, cut them off, and cauterize them.  He advocates a move towards a smaller, less intrusive government that shifts a WDC-centric vertical integration of rule back towards a state-centric horizontal integration model.  If you want to stop the car, back it up, and go back in the direction from whence you came…then Cruz is your man.  If you want to flip off the Democrats and take the position that damn the pain and side effects, we have to take the medicine to cure the Obama illness, then Ted Cruz is your choice.  If you want a dramatic departure from our current tax law towards a VAT option, then Cruz should be your candidate.  Is he a right-wing zealot who will wreck the government in order to recreate it or is he a strong-principled conservative that will do whatever it takes to steer the nation back towards a conservative bearing?  Answer this question with your vote.

Addressing our final candidate, I will shinny out a bit further on the limb.  I believe that Marco Rubio will be our next President.  Now I do not intend this blog as an endorsement for Rubio.  As of today, he is likely my candidate of choice; but I am not totally convinced he is the best man for the job and am certainly not here to advocate for him.  I simply say that he is best positioned to win the next Presidential race.  Taken at face value, Rubio presents what I believe to be the best solution to our nation’s drift; a drift towards loss of identity, purpose, morals, ethics, and position of influence in the free world.  I like Rubio’s proposal on tax reform that moves towards simplicity, fairness, and family-orientation while not departing from those parts of the tax code that have been fairly effective for decades.  I like the calm and studied approach that Rubio takes towards social issues; stating his personal beliefs when questioned but understanding that his beliefs do have to be everyone’s beliefs.  I like the way that Rubio continues to address the fact that government has become too large and intrusive and that we must get back to redefining government’s priorities and how those priorities can be financed.  I like Rubio’s life story and I see his youth as an asset; WDC is way too settled and comfortable for my taste. Picking someone who has been around the scene long enough to be a member of that club is not the solution to this nation’s problems.  Rubio’s hawkish positions on foreign policy give me pause.  I see him to the right of both Hillary and Cruz and I think that perhaps his life history has somewhat influenced what might be perceived as a hard-line approach to America’s leadership role in the free world.  Many will find this approach refreshing after eight years of Obama’s mushy foreign policy; but it would be a new and very different path for our nation in a world of chaos.  If he is open to advice and debate, then this could be a good departure from our current trajectory.  If he is autocratic in his decision making and keeps the blinders on when determining action, it could be a recipe for international disaster. As I said before, only time can answer questions such as these.  If you want a clear departure from the direction this nation has traveled over the last eight years, a withdrawal of government from the private sector, a de-emphasis on government interaction with social issues, a more Reaganesque approach to foreign policy and the overall tone of leadership, and a new emphasis on effective legislative efficiency, then Rubio might be your candidate.

So, if you look at a straight horizontal spectrum before you, put Cruz at the right end, put Hillary at the left end, and put Rubio about 75 percent (this number is certainly debatable) towards the right.  You now have before you the choices for our next President and what you might expect if they win.  One may argue that the principled voter will select one extreme or the other because, damn the torpedoes, the correct way is worth the costs!  A pragmatic voter might look in the middle at Rubio and see a more studied approach towards change; more of a shift towards a right-of-center direction for this country and its government.  Given their respective strengths and weaknesses, and imagining them both on a common stage, it is hard for me to envision a majority of voters selecting Hillary over Rubio…if he can win the nomination.  For what it is worth, and as of this day, I think the wise money is on Rubio.

Trump and Football Safety: Hyperbole and SHOT.

Trump and Football Safety: Hyperbole and SHOT.  Two topics that have been prevalent in the media over the last week are Trump’s comments regarding the Muslim faith and the safety issues swirling around concussions in football.  With no intention of relating the two, I will make a brief comment or two about each.

The fact that Trump is continuing to poll well ahead of his Republican presidential nomination opponents continues to stir very strong feelings from very different individuals and groups.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) are overjoyed by Trump’s bombastic remarks and the journalistic gymnastical challenges of attempting to tie his remarks to the Republican Party in general and the other nomination candidates in particular.  The Republican Party leadership is obviously becoming increasingly concerned over the prospect of Trump winning the nomination outright and, if media reports are to be believed, are knee deep in strategy meetings to deal with that contingency.  The most amazing aspect of this entire spectacle is how Trump manages to maintain or increase his poll numbers while making statements that are broadly labeled outrageous, irresponsible, un-American, and downright racist.  I think what is happening here is that Mr. Trump has taken up permanent residence in the land of hyperbole; extreme hyperbole, but hyperbole nonetheless.  Trump has taken controversial positions on both the Mexican/South American immigration issue and the Syrian/Muslim immigration issue.  In both of these instances, he repeats a pattern he has used before.  That pattern is to capture almost complete media attention with a policy statement that, on its surface, appears to be so far to the extreme as to be indefensible.  Then, upon being confronted with the apparent extremity of his stances, Trump will begin to prevaricate, while never really walking back or admitting any misstatements or untruths.  And somehow, someway, while performing these feats of shape-shifting, he never seems to damage his standing in the polls.  To me, the best example of this activity by Trump was his statement about thousands of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 tragedy in New Jersey.   While there were specific stories about Muslims in New Jersey having tailgate parties on rooftops, by any stretch of the facts no one in the media reported thousands of Muslims celebrating.   In this case and many others, Trump takes a kernel of truth, selected specifically for its political volatility, blows it entirely out of proportion, using the most electric language possible, and throws it out there to the journalistic hounds.  They attack it with a ferocity that is remarkable; they go over the top with their condemnation and criticisms, and when they confront Trump with his apparent errors, he is able to take advantage of their over eagerness, rhetorically blurring the lines between what he actually said and the kernels of truth, and then comes out looking better than those attacking him for his obvious and outlandishly false statements.  And probably the most remarkable tool Trump uses in the charade is his uncanny ability to select the topics he will address.  He somehow manages to touch a nerve that is present in many, many Americans about certain subjects and even though his comments are over-the-top and outrageous, there is just enough truth in them to garner acceptance and support from a significant number of potential voters.  You have to give Trump credit for this: He knows how to read the public.

Now for a change of pace.  With the upcoming release of Will Smith’s new movie about the NFL and concussions, that topic has been consuming many of the sports talk shows on radio and television.  It has reached a point where, apparently, many parents of youth football league players are either forbidding their participation in the sport or withdrawing them from competition.  It is incredible to me how we have arrived at a  risk assessment of football before addressing mixed martial arts, boxing, and other forms of professional and youth competitions that appear to be much more threatening…but here we are.  The NFL, much like NASCAR, has experienced such a rapid explosion in popularity and profit that their management has not been able to keep us with their business.  They more resemble the Keystone Kops or a County Fair Board than they do a governing body.  Given this behavior and performance, it is difficult to have much confidence in their ability to deal with the concussion issue in a responsible way.  But if they choose to do so, they might take a SHOT at this approach.  At the collegiate and professional levels, where finances will allow something like this over the long term and the size/speed/strength of the athletes make it more imperative, a lot of consideration needs to be given to improving the (S)urface on which the players compete.  Bottom line: modern technology surely provides a better alternative to a helmet slamming down against hard ground and turf.  Figure out an underlayment or something to cushion those impacts and mandate it transitionally over the near term.  Next, take a good hard look at the (H)elmets the players are wearing.  No doubt, there have been dramatic improvements in how effective football helmets are in protecting the players; but there can equally be no doubt that further improvement is possible and it is simply a matter of devoting resources to the problem at the expense of less profit.  One of the biggest indictments that can be placed against the NFL is the (O)utcome of players’ careers who play in the league.  When compared to MLB and the NBA, the NFL is light years behind in protecting the financial security of its athletes in both guaranteed salary contracts and average salary earnings.  When you consider the violence quotient of the NFL versus MLB and the NBA, the NFL should clearly take some large strides in providing its average and lesser-talented players with longer term, better guaranteed, and higher-paying contracts.  There is no reason why literally hundreds of journeyman NFL players should risk career-ending injury every week with no protection for their own and their families’ financial welfare.  I’m not talking about the stars here; those elites have it made from day one.  I’m talking about the guys that can’t afford to miss a practice or a play because the next man up will be just as hungry (or more so) as they are.   Professional sports organization profits are obscene and it is time for the NFL to take care of the men that fill the rosters every week and make it possible to acquire those profits.  And finally, there needs to be new discussion about (T)echniques.  There are common sense changes that can be made to NFL game rules that can simultaneously preserve the violent nature of the game and make it safer for the participants.  There is a lot to be said about the value of old school philosophy, but there will not be an NFL 25 years from now if kids quit playing the sport in youth leagues and high schools.  The NFL athletes of today are freakish in their physical abilities.  The mere thought of a 240 pound linebacker, who can run a 10.9 100, and has a 36” vertical leap, moving to a tackle with 5-10 yards to build up momentum is nothing short of frightening (especially if you have the ball).   Oh…and did I mention he is girded up in equipment like a freaking gladiator.  There will always be physical risk in sports; but it can be effectively minimized and managed without damaging the integrity of the games.

Kentucky's 2015 Gubernatorial Race: A Preview of Next Year's Presidential Race?

Kentucky’s 2015 Gubernatorial Race: A Preview of Next Year’s Presidential Race?  In November, Kentucky elected a surprise candidate as their next Governor.  Kentucky Democrats did not like him.  Many, many Kentucky Republicans (especially Mitch McConnell) did not like him.  And yet, Matt Bevin won a fairly comfortable contest over a very flawed Democrat opponent.  Leading up to the election, many of the Kentucky voters that I know and speak with on a regular basis expressed strong distaste for the candidates from both parties.  Even the Republican’s celebration over the win (grossly mispredicted by the state’s largest newspaper, The Curious Journal) was strangely subdued.  I do believe they realize that they now have won a prize whose value is rather dubious.  Is it possible that America is stumbling towards a similar predicament with next year’s Presidential race?

Trump seems to have exceeded the shelf life predicted for him by many self-proclaimed professional political prognosticators (say THAT real fast three times!)  Although the race for the Republican nomination is far from over, it is perilous for Trump’s detractors to dismiss him so easily.  If nothing else, he has proven to possess a resilience, powered by constant media attention, that has surprised…no, SHOCKED… the overwhelming majority of the nation’s political pundits.  On the other side of the political aisle, Hillary and her minions have effectively co-opted the National Democratic Party apparatus and are steadily proceeding towards her coronation as their nominee.  So…what exactly do we have here?

By any objective analysis, Trump is a loud-mouthed, mean-spirited, deviously calculating bully who has blustered his way into a strong lead for the Republican nomination by effectively targeting his amateurish and irresponsible rhetoric towards certain Republican voters.  His essence elicits either blind support or blind hatred from Republicans.  His nomination would undoubtedly split the party and result in many Republican voters staying at home on Election Day next November.  Democrats in leadership positions are absolutely giddy when they consider the prospect of competing against the Donald.  Unfortunately for them, their candidate is not really primed to take full measure of the advantages Trump might present to the Democrats.  Hillary is a proven liar with the personality of a door knob.  She is an unprincipled and ineffective orator who will say anything to anybody at any time (and in any dialect) in an attempt to curry support.  The overwhelming majority of Republicans and Independents recognize her for the dishonest, corrupt, professional politician that she is and a surprising number of Democrats see her the same way…while all the while supporting her with their checkbooks, rhetoric, and print.  It is hard to see how any candidate whose credibility and honesty is so poorly viewed, in such a settled fashion, by such a large number of American voters, could possibly run a successful presidential campaign.  But then again, there is the prospect that Trump will be her opponent.

I can think of no greater belated Christmas gift for the media mob than a Trump v. Clinton Presidential contest next year.  When considering this possibility, I have seen several of them go over the top with excitement.  And to those who can somehow perversely enjoy our nation’s political process, I can easily see how this potential match-up would be entertainment of the highest order.  Unfortunately, for those of us who do NOT see our presidential selection method as a well-oiled and finely tuned machine and do NOT make our livings hanging on every bit of drivel that emanates from the mouths of candidates; such a match-up would be depressing beyond description.  And, on the heels of Obama’s eight years of wandering in the wilderness, it would be a cause for absolute and total despair.  For those of us lucky (or unlucky?) enough to hang our hats in Kentucky, it would be two Novembers in a row where we go the polls and select the lesser of two evils to reward with our vote.  It would be the second time in a year’s span when we hold our nose to perform our civic duty.  It would be a clear indictment of the utter failure perpetrated on this nation by our two major political parties.  And it would throw the future of this nation into a realm of uncertainty that has not been conceived of in my lifetime.  

Filling Up Those Holes

Filling Up Those Holes.  In our country; in our society; in our culture; there is a huge void in peoples’ souls; both young and old.  More than ever before in history, there is a litany of things competing to fill those voids.  From TV evangelists to video games, there is no shortage of profitable enterprises whose entire purpose is to address and exploit that vacuum.   As strange as it may seem to some, the two recent college campus episodes at Yale and the University of Missouri, combined with last night’s Republican presidential primary debate, has led me to write a bit about this topic.

In his recent column posted on RealClearPolitics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/11/peggy_noonans_words_to_live_by_128692.html  , Peter Berkowitz writes this,  “From informality of dress and casualness of locution to hypersensitivity to slights and shirking of responsibility; from prolonged adolescence—sometimes reaching well into the thirties—to mawkish displays on talk and reality shows; from disengagement from civic life to politicians who lie brazenly with every expectation that their side will embrace their bald-faced falsehoods as self-evident truths, adults in contemporary America exhibit childish self-regard, thoughtlessness, and petulance.  Universities, which increasingly resemble kindergartens for adolescents and the adults who are paid to educate them, have taken this immaturity to new heights.”  Read that once more, maybe twice, and then reflect on it.  Berkowitz captures in a few carefully selected words exactly what we are witnessing in today’s world that makes us shake our heads and wonder what the hell is going on. 

Our children are stuck in their children mode.  Regardless of how good and pure their hearts are, many (if not most) are devoid of the life lessons that help them develop into mature and independent adults.  They go from high school to college to….where?  Some go back home (permanently).  Some go directly into supervisory or policy-making positions that grossly overvalue their education, mistaking it for life experience, and they never have the benefit of someone telling them, in a fashion they will listen to, that they do not know what the hell they are talking about.  For many of these kids, life is nothing more than a board game.  Collegiate academia has become a self-perpetuating bastion of liberal gobbely-gook; creating a nice, cushy career for shiftless intellectuals who see everyday existence as nothing more than another excuse for an endless philosophical discussion about the meaning of life and the lightness of light.  The college system (bubble??)  continues to atrophy, reliably fed and nourished by our nation’s elementary and high school network and the everlasting misnomer that any money spent on the education of our youth is money well spent.  It is becoming more ineffective and inefficient each day, saddling its eventual graduates (and non-graduates) with debilitating debt, and skill sets that makes them annoying dinner guests and infuriating children rather than productive citizens.  These young adults have holes in their lives and in their souls; holes that are being filled by gaseous college professors who view them as nothing more than modeling clay given to them for their experimentation and amusement.  At some point in this education process, we must get back to providing an education to people that leads to a purpose; a career in something that they can find both personally rewarding and self-sustaining.  Through family revitalization, education reform, and simple common sense, our adolescents must obtain ethical standards for conducting their private lives, their public lives, and achieving some form of independence in and from society.  I noticed in reading about the University of Missouri episode that the kid that was conducting the hunger strike had been in college for eight years.  EIGHT years!...are you kidding me.   There is so much wrong with that situation that I don’t know where to begin.  Education must get back to the point where it is a means to an end; not a personal magical mystery tour.  Self-enrichment and self-fulfillment are principles with merit, but they must be secondary to the primary purpose of college: Broadening your personal experience and knowledge in specific preparation for becoming a useful and responsible citizen of this society.  If kids want to change the world (and lord knows a lot of it needs changing), they must come to understand that they must first equip themselves to achieve that change and then move on to implement that change.

I firmly hold to the belief that a large reason (perhaps the largest reason) for the cultural decay previously addressed by Mr. Berkowitz is the fact that so many of our nation’s adults do not have a job.  I don’t say this to regurgitate the arguments about the nanny-state dependence that has grown so dramatically under this president and his policies; but rather to state the simple fact that a paycheck is one single thing in life that can help to build personal esteem and encourage people to reach for a better life.  I have been unemployed in my life and the feeling of helplessness it engenders is crippling.  It eats away at your feeling of self-worth and engenders a frustration that is beyond words.  To see the needs of your family and, in spite of your best efforts, not be able to meet those needs is simply a purgatory of sorts for any man or woman with any gumption at all.  That is the other hole that has to be filled.  Forget the people who simply refuse to work and look for a free ride.  They exist; they will always exist; and their generational influence on their children must be addressed in order to break the cycle; but I do not believe that this type of person constitutes the majority of our unemployed.  As I have previously discussed, we as a society have failed our children.  Our government has equally failed our adults.  We must get back to the point where our economy generates sufficient opportunities for those who are seeking work and cannot find it.  Many will say that people who are out of work simply are not looking hard enough.  In a few cases, this is true.  However, in most cases, it is simply a misconception and incorrect.  I continue to believe that if we can somehow establish that first initial link between a paycheck and an unemployed adult individual; then we have gone a long ways towards helping to re-establish some pride and self-respect in our citizens that are out of work.  When it can be ignited, that pride and self-respect is contagious and can spread to a spouse, or to a child, or to a friend, or to a neighborhood, and can work to literally change the face of our culture.  But it all begins with teaching our children how to live; equipping them with the right tools to accomplish dreams that are pragmatic and obtainable, and creating a nation where opportunities exist that allows them to seek that dream. 

I fully realize these words that I write are far from original; they have been spoken so many times before by so very many well-intentioned people.  Many people still dedicate their lives to the challenge of trying to achieve these goals.  I readily acknowledge that the easiest part of this equation is recognizing the problem.  I do not have the solution.  But this much I do know; what we are doing is not working.  Look at the hysterical and mindless rant of the Yale student…and the reaction of the zombie-like administrator she is addressing.  Think about how a student can be in a college for eight years and still find time to go on a hunger strike in a campus revolt.  Think about the lowest workforce participation by our population since the second Great War.  Think about the vacuous looks you get from the kids (and adults) that populate our service industry from top to bottom.  Think about the drivel that our political characters constantly generate, in the full expectation that we the people will swallow them all…hook, line, and sinker.  It will take a better person than me to come up with the remedy for this malady and I am far from certain that I see that person on either the Republican or Democrat debate stage; but change had best be coming soon.  The Europeanization of America is in full swing and someone, somehow, needs to start the process of taking this country back.

Hey...Let's Talk About Kentucky Politics!

Hey…Let’s Talk About Kentucky Politics!  It is always interesting when I can get up in the morning and expect to see my home state mentioned on the national news.  There is always that gripping fear that the commentator will select the biggest idiot in the county for their piece and then hold them up as the average Kentuckian, but that doesn’t happen every time and hope springs eternal.  Kentucky held one of the few consequential elections in the nation yesterday and that fact was not lost on many news outlets.  For the first time in decades, Kentucky will have a Republican Governor and for the first time ever, it will have a black female as Lt. Governor.  As is the case in many political stories, this one is not exactly what it might appear to be on the surface; let’s look a bit closer.

Matt Bevin rolled into Kentucky politics by jumping up in Mitch McConnell’s face.  He calculated that McConnell’s tenuous relationship with the conservative wing of the Republican Party might translate into a conservative candidate upset in the last Republican Party Senatorial Primary.  He was wrong.  Bevin is a pretty sharp cookie, but he has a long ways to go to gain the political savvy of McConnell and he sure got schooled in that primary.  When Kentucky’s sitting Governor got term-limited and the seat opened up, the Republican Party had their candidate ready to go.  Sitting Ag Commissioner James Comer was groomed and ready to ascend to the governor’s chair.  But when a primary dust-up occurred in the Republican primary between Comer and Hal Heiner, they both got muddied up and Bevin slipped between them to steal the Republican nomination.  Truth be told, this was a huge disappointment to Kentucky Republican Party leadership.  They were very confident and comfortable with Comer and were frankly thrown for a loop when Bevin managed to upset their apple cart.  It is completely fair to characterize their support for Bevin as lukewarm and simply a case of supporting the only candidate standing.  Bevin benefited further from one of the weakest Democratic candidates in memory when Jack Conway was selected to be his opponent.  Liberal-leaning Jack Conway would fit in well in New York or Massachusetts, but was wwwaaaaayyy out of step with the average Kentuckian.  He was very liberal, an ardent supporter of gay marriage and Obamacare, and simply came across as a squishy child of privilege with no core principle.   His simple strategy was to highlight Bevin’s checkered past in the private sector and overwhelmingly carry his home county of Jefferson, which accounts for about 20 percent of Kentucky’s total vote totals.  Sometimes simple is best and in this case, this strategy made a lot of sense to a lot of people.  I think the weakness in this thinking was in overvaluing Conway, underestimating Bevin’s retail political skills, and not taking into account the average Kentuckian’s frustration with Obama and his administration.  Bevin effectively glued Conway to Obama and that was the kiss of death.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and Bevin’s decision to add Jenean Hampton as his Lt. Governor choice certainly looks smarter today than it did the day he made it.  At that time, it appeared to be a flailing move to polish up his diversity credentials and wrangle a vote or two; Ms. Hampton being an accomplished black female.  At the risk of giving Bevin too much credit, he might very well have selected Hampton in a stroke of genius.  Bevin could not win the governor’s race by losing Jefferson County in an overwhelming fashion.   By heavily advertising in Jefferson County, an urban county with a large minority segment, and prominently featuring Ms. Hampton and the issue of school choice, Bevin managed to hold Conway’s winning percentage to 58.  This is quite frankly an amazingly low number for a Democrat in Jefferson County and without doing the math, it had to contribute mightily to Bevin’s ultimate victory.  Although the Lt. Governor’s slot in Kentucky government is largely irrelevant, it is simply marvelous that we have selected an apparently qualified, minority, female candidate to serve in that capacity.  Here is hoping she meets with great success in the future.  I find it very interesting that this morning’s (the day after the election) mainstream media broadcasts hardly mention Ms. Hampton and her win.   I suppose a black female who happens to be conservative isn’t really black and female after all.

Republicans in general, both in Kentucky and nationally, should be very careful in their celebration of this win.  I would venture to say that fully one out of every four votes that Bevin received was an anti-Conway vote rather than a pro-Bevin vote.  The Republican Party, both local and national, was extremely reluctant to support Bevin and without the late, generous support of the Republican Governor’s Association, Bevin might not have won this race.  Still smarting from his primary confrontation with Bevin, McConnell was very late to the Bevin party and only at the last minute did he appear publicly with the candidate.  As the old saying goes…victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan.  Today the Republicans joyously celebrate their sweeping Kentucky election wins.  They might want to pause a bit.  If things go as they might, the Republicans in Kentucky might very well seize full control of the state legislature next year; if that happens, the sitting Kentucky Governor will be in position to implement sweeping changes on this state’s landscape.  A strong case can be made that Matt Bevin is an east coast, Tea Party version of Bill Clinton/Donald Trump and nothing more than an opportunistic interloper into Kentucky politics.  He certainly has no debt to pay to the Kentucky Republican Party, given their tepid support during this campaign.  Although I celebrate Ms. Hampton’s selection, she too is not native to Kentucky and it is yet to be determined if her political instincts are rooted in Kentucky conservatism or Detroit populism.    If, in fact, the Republicans gain control of the state legislature next year, the performance and record of this new governor will have a lasting impact on the public’s perception of the Republican Party in Kentucky.  I expect that many Kentucky Republican leaders are asking themselves this question this morning: “Have we put a fox in charge of the hen house?”

What A Sorry Bunch.

What A Sorry Bunch.  Does it really matter if control of Congress is in Republican or Democrat hands?  Apparently not.  Once again, we are on the cusp of entering a federal fiscal year with no budget; while simultaneously exploding through our debt limit.  The pathetic performance of this Congress in its failure to pass appropriations bills is beyond parody; it is sad beyond tragedy.  I have been at the front of the line in criticizing this president for abusing executive privilege, but at least he was doing something (something stupid, but something none the less).  Any partisan Republican who wants to publicly criticize Obama and his spending habits needs to simply sit down and shut up.  Republicans must understand that if they fail to do their job, they lose the right to criticize those who fill the vacuum.  How laughable is it that in this recent Obama/Boehner/Pelosi/McConnell/Reid budget, the savings to pay for the spending explosion will come from…wait for it…2025.  Are you serious?  Only two years into a modest sequester, they can’t even live with those cuts; and we are to believe they will make promised cuts 10 years…TEN YEARS…down the road?

Once again, Republicans have absolutely no standing to complain about irresponsible government spending.  As fiscally sophomoric as he has been in his spending habits, Obama has been no more inept than the Republicans in WDC.  This bunch now comes forward with a 2-year budget that breaks the sequester promise and makes the “deal with the devil” of spending one domestic dollar for every military dollar.  If the Republicans ever expect, ever again in the foreseeable future, to have any credibility whatsoever regarding federal spending restraint, they will dispense with this sordid budget agreement and do the typical scotch tape job of maintaining the status quo into the next FY and kicking the debt limit can a few months down the road.  And then, perhaps they will begin to do the job for which they are paid, roll up their sleeves, forego their partisan grandstanding, and begin to pass the 13 appropriation bills necessary for the next federal fiscal year.  If Obama wants to play shutdown games, let him choose his poison with a rifle; not a scatter gun.

Obama has been the worst president in my lifetime.  His incompetence has been so blatant as to be laughable.  And yet, the Republicans can’t even get on the golf course to oppose him.  Even worse, they repeatedly carry his bag and tee up his balls.  Therein lies the only remarkable Republican achievement in recent years; teeing up something that apparently doesn’t even exist. 

Ryan and Blair: One is Right; the Other is Wrong.

Ryan and Blair: One is Right; the Other is Wrong.  Two men featured prominently in this week’s news are Paul Ryan and Tony Blair; Ryan for his upcoming run at House Speakership and Blair for his Iraq War apology.  Both stories are significant on their face, but represent much larger stories beneath the surface.

It has been fascinating to watch the mainstream media go on and on about the disarray in the Republican Party due to their lively debate about a new House Speaker.  All the while, there has been hardly a mention of the seismic split that exists between Debbie W/S, Hillary’s minions, and the rest of the Democratic Party.  While the Republicans engage in an open and transparent debate about who and what a House Speaker should be, the Democratic Party leadership is stifling any debate that might possibly impede a Hillary coronation as nominee.  You tell me…which process seems more democratic to you?  The Freedom caucus in the House had better wake up and smell the coffee; Paul Ryan can possibly be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party in a very long time.  His record demonstrates that he is a rock-solid fiscal conservative with innovative and courageous ideas and policy initiatives that can begin to get this nation back on its fiscal rails.  And because he does not toe the line on many very conservative social positions, he should be thrown overboard?  First off, his social conservative positions line up much better with most Americans than do those of the Freedom caucus.  Secondly, Ryan represents that rare mix of boldness with a healthy dose of pragmatism.  He understands that one can refuse to compromise on principle, while being willing to compromise on practice.  He sees and understands the political realities of the deep, partisan divisions in our nation and has the best chance of anyone standing to help bridge this divide.  And for our government to move back towards the position of proper function, that divide must be bridged.  The image, demeanor, and clear common sense of Paul Ryan as the face of the Republican Party would be a blessing from above for that Party and anyone who votes otherwise in the House needs to re-examine their understanding of political reality.

This week Tony Blair apologized for his role in the Iraq War; becoming the most recent public figure to push George W. Bush further under the bus that has been repeatedly mangling him for the last decade.  Like many before him who have done the same thing for the same reason, this exposes Blair as a spineless coward.  One of the biggest travesties in history has been the saddling of George W. Bush as the sole perpetrator of the Iraq War.  To hear Blair and all those who preceded him in this lame apology business, W hijacked a plane and dropped a nuke on Iraq…in the dead of night…without anyone else knowing.  Where to begin with this bunch of jellyfish that bend their collective conscience to flow with the daily winds?  One of the biggest epiphanies that one realizes as they advance through their education is that horrible atrocities have been perpetrated by leaders on their people throughout history, most times with the knowledge and acquiescence of by-standing nations and their leaders.  On those occasions when the world mustered up the courage and will to defeat these monsters, history stands up and cheers for them.  That practice stopped with George W. Bush.  Saddam Hussein was committing genocide on his own people.  His administration used rape, murder, and chemical weaponry as tools to maintain control and power over Iraq.  He was clearly a menace to his people, a menace to his neighboring countries, and an ever-increasing menace to the world.  These facts are not in dispute.  The disputable part is two-fold: Did he have weapons of mass destruction and if so, should we engage in separating him from these weapons.  On a nearly unanimous basis, the free world and its respective intelligence agreed that Saddam had chemical weapons, was actively using them against his own people and neighbors, and was in the process of manufacturing and stockpiling more for the future.  The United Nations passed resolution after resolution to try and deal with this issue; all with no effect.  Meanwhile, the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of this despot marched on; all while the free world fiddled.  When Bush finally made the decision to physically remove Saddam from power, there were many who were reluctant.  This is as it should be.  War is a terrible choice whenever it is made and every single alternative must be pursued prior to its moment.  It is obvious from the United Nations and Congressional resolutions that that moment had come and the only person on this planet that could implement that realization was George W. Bush.  He did it.  He did it deliberately, openly, with the full backing of the United Nations and the U.S. Congress.  It was a quagmire.  Many innocent lives were lost, destroyed, or damaged in the conflict; as is the case with all wars.  Mistakes in execution were made; but those mistakes were ultimately corrected.  A military victory was finally realized and handed over to incoming President Obama.  He proceeded to cast aside all the precious blood and investment that had gone into the apparent outcome and frittered it away through his failure to stand up the new Iraqi government with an effective SOF agreement.  He could not wait to get out of Iraq and his haste and idealism resulted in a vacuum that we continue to deal with today.  Since that moment when U.S. troops, along with tens of allied nation’s troops, marched into Iraq and dethroned a monster, many of the people who were there cheering, jeering, or were standing silent have been finding their voices and have been increasingly bold in their condemnation of the war effort.  They find refuge and cover in a media that never liked Bush in the first place and eagerly jump on every opportunity to tarnish his legacy.  They count on short memories to cover over the fact that they were for the war before they were against the war.   They find comfort in the popular revisionism of history that swells the number of war critics while pasting over the realities that led to the invasion.  These spineless characters; these sunshine soldiers who go with the herd wherever it roams; these public figures with no sense of shame or personal acceptance of consequence; one by one they have ventured out and condemned George W. Bush as a reckless, cowboy President who defied all those wise people surrounding him and single-handedly led this nation into a painful and costly middle east conflict.  Hindsight is not an option for Presidents; it should not be accepted as an option for critics.  Hindsight is a tool for learning; for implementing changes that might improve our actions in future episodes.  George W. Bush, with the backing of Congress, the backing of the United Nations, and with the full and harsh realization of the bloody and precious costs involved, led this nation into the Iraq War.  He did so because a monstrous leader was terrorizing his own people and threatening to spread his madness to the free world.  Credit those who stood at that moment and said “Stop, this is a mistake”.  They might have been right or wrong, but at least they stood up when it counted.  For all those who did not stand up then…keep your damn mouths shut, suck it up, and understand that actions and inactions have consequences.  

Obama's Legacy: The Triumph of Dogma Over Competence.

Obama’s Legacy: The Triumph of Dogma Over Competence.  When I question people I know who once enthusiastically supported Barrack Obama, they seem to be reluctant soldiers; they no longer have the fire in the belly for hope and change.  Rather than acknowledge the monumental mistake of putting him in the White House, they tend to rationalize that government is inherently dysfunctional…or the Republicans have sabotaged his presidency…or the world itself is too complex for one person to deal with…or he is supported by people who give him bad advice.  It is this last one that I want to write about today.

There is no doubt in my mind that fully 85 percent of Obama’s policy initiatives, whether they are legislative or executive action, are ill-conceived and poor choices.  However, this country has survived lots of bad policy in its past and has somehow managed to get past it.  For this reason, I have been fairly optimistic that given time, this nation will heal the wounds opened and aggravated by this president; that we as a people will somehow swing the pendulum back to center from the fantastical, idealistic leftward position that Obama has wrought.  Every President, regardless of party and intelligence, sees a vision for this country and pursues that vision once elected; that is as it should be.  And to accomplish this legitimate quest, a President will select people for key positions of authority to help him or her implement that vision.  The unspoken, but unquestionably primary, obligation on a President is that they select people that are competent to do their jobs.  I have come to the point of view that Obama’s failure in this area will have a longer-lasting negative effect on our nation than will his poor policy decisions.

The overwhelming percentage of federal employees is not high-paid, patronage appointments.  They are dedicated, public servants who happen to work for our government.  Like any worker, they want to take pride in their jobs and some satisfaction that they serve by administering programs promulgated for the people and by the people.  Even though civil service, much like the teaching profession, can tend to breed mediocrity; most federal employees work very hard, strive to be efficient, and heed the call of delivering an hour’s work for an hour’s pay.  It is a tragedy that in our form of government, many of the leadership positions in federal departments and agencies are filled with political appointees.  These people have an inordinate amount of influence over exactly what and how their subordinates do their jobs.  Even though the Congress and the Courts are designed to be counter-balances to their overreach or idealism, the plain fact is that the typical reaction to their abuse of power is either tardy to point of irrelevance or reluctance to fight the battle in the first place.  In other words, these people who are selected by the President to oversee how our government is run and how to spend our tax dollars are basically unchallenged for the term of their President; pretty much having the run of the place.  In a perfect world, these political appointees, even though they share a philosophy with their President, will approach their duties in a thoughtful and deliberative fashion; relying on the career civil servants that are in place to serve them in their new positions.  A wise department or agency head will realize that the career employees that they will supervise are invaluable resources to use in effecting positive change.  If this is the case, even bad policy is limited in the long-term, detrimental effect it can have on our people.  Put another way, bad policy delivered efficiently can only hurt so much.  On the other hand, bad policy delivered inefficiently, in an arrogant and ham-handed manner, can result in lasting damage to our governmental model that might take generations to heal.  This is the Obama way.

Civil servants understand they are the foot soldiers of their agency or department heads.  They understand that their lot is to serve and implement; not to devise.  They commonly are faced with the challenge of administering programs or policies with which they might personally disagree; but also realize that they must do their job regardless.  Federal job descriptions are pretty complete and specific and readily point out that most government employees are paid to do, not paid to think.  The requirement that civil servants keep this tenet foremost in their mind when approaching their job performance is paramount in having a government that works efficiently and effectively.  But when politically-appointed leaders are either grossly incompetent to do their job or allow idealism to trump common sense, civil servants cannot help but be affected by it.  The result is two-fold.  First, a department or agency will devolve into anarchy due to the illogical and arbitrary operations dictated by their incompetent leaders.  Second, and most damaging, the army of federal employees that daily delivers the will of the people to the masses will become disillusioned to the point of being inefficient and ineffective.  Government will cease to work; departments and agencies will cease to function.  It is not unlike rot in a towering and ancient tree.  Once it begins, it is very hard to overcome.  I challenge you to look around yourself at people you encounter; especially those associated with government.  Do you see signs of rot?  Do you see disillusionment with the ways things are and the direction they are going?  Does any one of us, regardless of political leanings, think that this bureaucratically-bloated behemoth of a government that president Obama inherited has improved in any single area of function and operation?  Over the last nearly seven years, have we taken actions to tame the beast or have we consistently fed the beast?  Obama has routinely taken the path of least resistance in his presidency.  Rather than roll up his sleeves and tackle the hard work necessary to implement his vision and changes to our government, he has arrogantly trivialized and alienated those who hold differing opinions; choosing instead to layer this government with incompetent and unqualified leaders who seem to accept that thinking it to be a certain way is sufficient to make it a certain way.  Let us all hope and pray that the rot this Obama administration has instilled in our government can be overcome by our next President. 

My Lord, What A Freaking Mess.

My Lord, What A Freaking Mess.  I am a simple man, living a simple life, and pretty average in most respects.  I have readily acknowledged my lack of sophistry in matters of foreign policy and, like most people who venture opinion on the internet; I have occasionally disregarded that stance and assumed improperly the mantle of understanding and knowledge.  Once again, I submit that very few in or out of our government are gifted with both the intelligence and the opportunity to grasp the myriad complexities of today’s global onion.  Having said that, I can nonetheless render an opinion on the common sense quotient, hypocrisy level, and total and unabashed arrogance of those who pretend to know all there is to know about the geopolitical landscape and yet, based on anyone’s objective observations, are complete and total idiots.  I am talking about president Obama and his minions here.

It is impossible, and patently foolish, to project how historians will record today’s events in hindsight.  If nothing else, we have learned that all too often, history is written in such a fashion to reflect the agenda of the authors.  However, some things are so obvious as to be unavoidable and although they might be spun in a certain tilt, the obvious truth will out eventually.  For the record, let us consider some of Obama’s foreign policy misadventures.

·      Perhaps the linchpin in the entire Middle East mess is the failure of the Iraqi people to stand up a competent government in the wake of the Iraq war.  Sincere people can take opposing and legitimate positions on the wisdom of U.S. engagement in the Iraqi War, but there is not much left to the imagination about the conclusion of the episode.  After spending his brief time in the Senate rhetorically opposing the war and then voting to support it, once he began his presidential campaign in earnest, Obama made the Iraq War the centerpiece of all that he found wrong with the Bush foreign policy.  Once elected, it became obvious that his top priority (Obamacare notwithstanding) was to wash his hands of this particular war as soon as possible.  After the successful surge administered by the Bush administration (as opposed to the unsuccessful Afghanistan surge initiated by the Obama administration), Iraq had a stable and decent opportunity (Obama’s own words) to establish, over the long haul, a competent and decent government that might serve its people well and make it a prospective member of good standing in Middle East and the global society.  But in  his haste to end this relationship and under the pretense of sincere negotiating, the Obama administration deep-sixed the post-war Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government, packed up and headed home, and left Iraq to fend for itself.  Respected and experienced people on both sides of the political aisle warned that without a modicum of U.S. support, Iraq might well descend into chaos.  Ignoring this advice and once again relying on  his fairy tale and “smartest guy in the room” attitude, Obama got out of Iraq clean and quick.  The result has been a power vacuum filled by ISIL/ISIS and other selected entities pursuing their own agendas with no regard for the Iraqi people.  A reasonable argument can be made that the resulting Iraqi vortex was the spark that lit the present Middle East inferno.

·      Yesterday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest cited the Iraqi War as a major U.S. failure and compared it to the failed Soviet effort in Afghanistan.  The shamelessness of this administration knows no boundaries.  After orchestrating the downfall of the Gaddafi government in Libya, the Obama administration not only failed to help clean up the mess it created, it stranded American personnel in the middle of the chaos and carelessly cost them their lives.  This episode is precisely what the Obama administration accuses G. W. Bush of doing in Iraq and yet they simply assume that no one will see the parallels.  And…I suppose they are correct.  Perhaps if Hillary gets the Democratic presidential nod, this Libyan chapter will experience a bit more scrutiny.  Right or wrong, Obama was handed a military victory on a silver platter in Iraq and he pissed it away due to his arrogance and stupidity.  And then, in a show of astounding incompetence, he executed in Libya precisely that which he accused the Bush administration of doing.  The big difference is that Bush won the first half of the game and the second half failed because a new coach took over.  In the case of Libya, the game was a total and abject failure and the same coach presided over both halves.

·      The U.S. had two assets in the Middle East; the free and Democratic nation of Israel and the small group of west-leaning nations such as Saudi Arabia.  Not only has Obama destroyed our relationship with Israel, his glaring incompetence has frittered away any leverage or credibility we ever had with the small group of Middle Eastern countries that once stood with us.  And now, fearing the spread of the chaos they see in Iraq/Iran/Syria, they look eastward for someone to fill the power vacuum created by our pathetic president.   Who do you suppose stands ready to fill that void?

·      It is abjectly depressing to see the utter disregard displayed by Russia and Putin in their dealings with our government.  Openly ridiculing our president has become common practice for Soviet officials and it has reached the level of true embarrassment.  If Obama were teaching an Ivy League college course in foreign affairs or writing an op-ed for the Old Gray Lady, this situation might be somewhat amusing.  There is absolutely no amusement when Putin obviously reaches the conclusion that he has nothing whatsoever to fear from this president or this country, knows that the time is running out for the Obama administration, and is shoving his brutal and hegemonic foreign adventures into high gear.  What do you suppose North Korea and China are thinking?

I remain utterly dismayed at the damage this small man has wrought on our nation, both domestically and globally.  I can only pray that the cost in innocent lives can somehow be kept to a minimum and that Obama’s successor, whoever that might be, is sufficiently wise and capable to begin the long and costly process of healing this nation and all that has gone terribly wrong over the last six and one-half years.

Blow It Up; Blow It Up; BLOW IT THE HELL UP!

It has belatedly occurred to me that everyone who reads this particular blog might not be familiar with the rules of order in the United States Senate.  This piece is a direct reference to the so-called nuclear option for that body, which under some circumstances would require a simple majority of 51 votes as opposed to a super-majority in order to pass certain legislation.

Blow It Up; Blow It Up; BLOW IT THE HELL UP!  If I hear my home state Senator Mitch McConnell say one more time that he orchestrated a certain Senatorial procedural move because “the president will veto it”, or “we don’t have the votes”, or “it is simply a show vote”, or “this is a long-term game”, I think I will throw up and come face to face with the prospect of voting for an Independent or Democrat Senator from Kentucky. 

I am sick and tired of watching Republicans bring knives to gun fights.  Is it any wonder that folks like Trump and Carson and Fiorina, who happen to be far away from WDC, are capturing the imagination of Republican primary voters?  Over the last few elections, the voters of this nation have put the Republican Party in charge of both houses of Congress.  They put them there because they preferred the policy positions that they espoused during the political campaigns.  They put them there with comfortable, not super, majorities in each house because they were sick of the leftward Democratic Party drift.  And what happens?  Not a damn thing!  According to McConnell, if you want to see real Republican action, you have to either give him a Republican President or a super majority.  It is always something else or a bit more or just a step or two short of the target.  It is never enough.  Well, I say ENOUGH!

As politically divided as this nation is and as concrete as election demographics appear to be, it is very difficult to imagine either party achieving a super majority in either Congressional house any time soon.  This fact did not prevent Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from putting Obamacare into force.  It did not prevent them from packing the federal courts with liberal judges.  It did not prevent them from literally shutting down the legislative process so that Obama could rule this government with executive fiat.  Are Republicans so anxious to acquire a “statesman-like image” that they will continually allow the Democrats to slap them, mock them, knock them down, and walk on them before they wise up and realize that the ONLY WAY TO WIN IS TO MATCH YOUR OPPONENT’S WILL?  Decorum be damned!

This country is literally swirling in the basin of a toilet.  The damage that our pathetic president has wrought is massive, embedded, festering, and intricately entwined in our culture and society.  It will take generations to reverse some of the decay he has inserted into our country.  But the Republicans in WDC; the Republicans in the House; the Republicans in the Senate; and yes, the last Republican in the White House have to accept a large portion of the blame for our national decay.  When the cause is sufficiently righteous; when the damage is apparent, ongoing, and increasing; when the battle is going so badly that utter defeat is imminent; it is then time to understand that nothing is achieved without victory.  It is time for the U.S. Senate to assume its obligations under our governmental model.  It is time for them to take the ideas passed by the Republicans in the House and vote them up or down on a majority basis.  It is time for lines to be drawn about where certain Senators stand on certain issues.  It is time to validate the faith that American voters placed in the Republican Party.  Senator McConnell….BLOW IT THE HELL UP!

You Decide...Which Is A Great Victory?

You Decide….Which Is A “Great” Victory?  Two significant events happened this week.  First, president Obama gained the promise of a sufficient number of Senate votes to uphold an Executive veto in the case of a Congressional vote disapproving of the Iran Executive Agreement.  Secondly, we witnessed a federal judge overturning an NFL Commissioner decision, which had been taken (according to the Commissioner) on the basis of his authority in the negotiated players/owners Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).  The media is hailing each development as great victories; you be the judge.

Put the merits of the Iran Agreement aside for a moment.  Our president declined to call this a treaty because he said, to the effect, that in today’s WDC political environment, no treaty can be approved.  Therefore, this Iran deal fell under the lesser category of an executive agreement.  Whatever it may be called, the likely failure of a Congressional disapproval will result in the effective implementation of the agreement.  Whether you personally support this agreement or not, there is absolutely no denying that the agreement is controversial; and that there are sincere and intelligent people on either side of the support/oppose argument.  There can also be no denying that the Middle East situation, in which Iran is inextricably a central player, is one of the most (if not THE most) critical areas of foreign policy and national security today.  Ask yourself the simple question: Shouldn’t the standard for approval of such a momentous deal be higher than simply one-third of the votes in the U.S. Senate?  When you have a situation where over two-thirds of the House, both Republican and Democrat members, vote against this deal and a number approaching two-thirds of the Senate, both Republican and Democrat, oppose the same deal… shouldn’t someone, somehow, somewhere in this idiotic administration understand that this agreement lacks the necessary support to legitimately gain implementation?  A reasonably intelligent person might consider reconsidering the terms of this agreement.  A rational, open-minded person might wonder if it is such a great deal for our country after all.  A responsible and competent leader would actually meet face-to-face with opponents of the deal to try and understand their opposition.  Alas, that is not what we have.  We have a hollowed-out, unprincipled politician in the White House who, supported blindly my the mainstream media, sees any victory at all in this matter (even one as pathetic as a narrow veto-supporting Senate vote) as a “legacy” for his administration in the realm of foreign policy.  My goodness; have the terms “victory” and “legacy” been dumbed-down so low as to be applicable in this situation?

And now, let’s move on to the spectacle of men playing games and being declared royalty for doing so successfully; otherwise known as professional sports.  The NFL has had a niche carved out for it in our society.  The salaries that athletes, coaches, management, and league personnel are paid are obscene.  When television screens that present a picture that is actually superior to being there are easily affordable and readily available, it is remarkable that NFL teams can fill their stadiums for 16 regular season games, plus the playoffs.  And yet, on occasions, the main players on the opposing sides of the league and the players association forget how damn fortunate they are to have this privilege and commence to behave like infants in the sandbox.  The NFL Commissioner, backed by the NFL owners and lawyers, fleeced the Players Association when they negotiated the current CBA.  Not being a lawyer, two things seem obvious to me.  First, the Commissioner can cite any act he desires for punishment if, in his opinion, it is detrimental to the integrity of the game.  Secondly, if his initial decision on punishment is appealed, then HE will be the arbiter in the appeal hearing.  That’s right; he will consider the wisdom of his own initial decision.  Now any of us might agree that this is a stupid agreement and we might also wonder…why the hell the Players Association agreed to such a deal.  I suppose some things simply cannot be explained.  But binding agreement or not, when a party to said agreement abuses their powers beyond all reason and reaches a level where judgments and actions are clearly arbitrary and unfair, then the question is begged…Can a legal agreement be broken if a party to said agreement abuses their rights within the agreement to an extreme level?  Even if the Players Association was crazy enough to agree to this thing and legally sign off it, must they be subjected to the flagrant and abusive exercise of powers by the Commissioner as granted by the agreement?  To this NFL fan, the clear answer is “NO!”  Just like what I have seen in NASCAR, the popularity of the NFL and its accompanying financial treasures has outrun its ability to competently and fairly administer itself.  They are both run like “good ole boy” networks in a rural southern county.  As stupid as individual players may sometimes behave or speak, they are nonetheless the primary essence of what makes the NFL successful.  They have a fundamental right to be meaningful partners when it comes to deciding what rules will define standards of behavior in the league.  The dictatorial attitude and approach of the NFL owners and their Commissioner has risen to unacceptable heights, has been repeatedly shot down by the court system of this nation, and has once again been loudly repudiated in the Brady affair.  I say “Hell Yes” and bring ‘em down.  Professional basketball and baseball have already fought this war and settled on bargaining agreements that accept the players as full partners in the administration of the leagues.  It is now time for the NFL owners and Commissioner to understand the realities of what makes people care about professional football and sit down at the table to negotiate IN GOOD FAITH with the Players Association.

The Trifecta Catchup.

The Trifecta Catchup.  Here are some thoughts on three current issues.  Each, especially the last one, probably merits a longer address, but in the case of this challenged blogger, less is probably more.

First, I find myself in the awkward position of applauding Hillary Clinton.  My disdain for Hillary runs nearly as deep as what I hold for Obama, but right is right.  As the recent YouTube video shows, when confronted by a Black Lives Matter advocate backstage at one of her events, Clinton engaged in a brief conversation about the goals and methods of the BLM movement.  During the conversation, Clinton spends a couple of minutes pointing out to the BLM representative that no politician can change peoples’ hearts.  She correctly stated that we can institute laws, regulations, and policies that strive towards equality and dignity for all; but that peoples’ hearts (by and large) would not be changed by political movements, personalities, or concerns.  Now I have never considered Hillary to be a great orator.  I do believe that the woman is fairly intelligent in an esoteric fashion, but one should never mistake her as a gifted speaker or conversationalist.  Having said that, my words cannot begin to give sufficient credit to the manner in which Clinton replied to the BLM person during this part of the conversation.  With an efficiency of words that is remarkable for a politician, she went straight to the heart of the matter and pointed out the futility of trying to eliminate prejudice in this way.  One can only hope that this startling verbal effectiveness was only a passing moment and that the fever will pass quickly; returning her to the bumbling, devious, and politically-challenged candidate that she is and always has been.

It has dawned on me recently that I have been living for the past couple of decades with a misperception.  I have believed, and often stated, that a President receives too much credit when times are good and too much blame when times are bad.  The President’s ability to affect our lives, given the limits our governmental system, dictates that aside from the bully pulpit, their ability to institute serious change in our society and lives is incremental at best.  Obama has proven me wrong.  My perception that the President can only implement positive change in incremental fashion remains intact.  Executive actions, by their nature, are oftentimes temporary; what one President does, the next President can undo.  Only through the fundamental and difficult labor of legislation can a President effect lasting and substantial change to our nation.  However, Obama has convinced me that I was incorrect on the opposite side of my theory.  The damage he has wrought to this nation, through the principal use of executive action, is no doubt lasting and substantial.  I can only hope it is not permanent.  I do not include Obamacare in this indictment; even thought it was part legislative and part executive action.   I have always believed that elections have consequences.  I believe that if voters choose to be frivolous and uninformed in their selections and support, that those choices will come back to haunt us.  Where I was mistaken was in thinking that the checks and balances built into our government would somehow prevent a single bad President from wreaking damage that would last long beyond their term(s).  Obama has totally destroyed this notion.  As a combination of his incompetence, his obstinate ideological approach to governing, his narcissistic nature, the weakness of the Republicans in Congress, the excessive tolerance of the American people, and his brazen disregard for statesmanship and legal standing, Obama has single-handily damaged this country to a degree that will require decades to overcome. 

And finally, to close out my diatribe, I would like to briefly note the decay of civility in our society.  I have lived a blessed life and the good Lord has been generous with me and my family.  I have not demanded much and been given more than I ever expected, or deserved.  As this sprawling nation and immense planet goes, I live in a fairly small bubble and am pretty well insulated from what might be considered national trends.  Having said that, however, I cannot help but be dismayed by the signs I encounter in my everyday life that indicate to me that our society is in decay.  I see it in the way our leaders behave; their lack of respect and common consideration for each other and their constituents.  I see it in the way that contractors and skilled craftsmen do their work; compromising on the quality, having no pride in their product, and depersonalizing the services they provide.  I see it in the customer service industry; the way a clerk or waitress will oftentimes view you as an insect, rather than a paying customer.  I see it in our morals and our ethics; promoting all manner of behavior, regardless of outrageousness, in the name of tolerance and sacrificing personal dedication to principle in the name of doing “just what the law/job/people/etc. requires”.  We all know that our children are woefully unprepared by our education system to graduate into responsible and productive citizens; and yet we continue to abstain our responsibilities as parents and focus instead on sports and extracurricular activities.  We are all becoming weary of fighting the good fight and are increasingly drawn into our personal orbits of existence; becoming comfortable with the blinders that shut out all but that which is in our immediate vicinity.  Perhaps this is the natural evolution of our culture and I am simply stuck in the past; but I would like to think that we are instead immersed in some type of funk from which we will someday awaken.  It takes a wiser man, or woman, than me to figure out that awakening, but I do know this for certain: If we continue to sit uninformed and surrender our rights and responsibilities as human beings and Americans, we will deserve the consequences those inactions will bring.  If we do not become part of the solution; we are inextricably part of the problem.