just what we need

Actor Fred Thompson is said to be about to enter the race for the GOP nomination for the White House. I don't know much about the guy, I have seen him in a couple of movies, (I think), but that's about it. The New York Times, that bastion of commentary on all things political, (well, besides me), reports it in this blog entry.

I am not going to comment much, but I think that it says something about the way that the nation has evolved over the past century that media attention can be percieved as having substance, in almost any arena. FDR made very good use of the national media in mobilizing and shaping public opinion towards the nations economic health, the diplomatic situations in Europe and Japan, as well as his own political agenda. He had the luxury of being the trend setter, and as such, was a bit above the pandering fray. Since that time we have seen pol's and pundits of all stripes use (or not use) the media in differing ways, with different levels of success, but the common factor is that we have come to equate media exposure with some degree of significance or importance. Thanks to the omnipresent news gathering culture that we have, the truly important usually gets some exposure, (unless it is deliberately concealed), albeit sometimes between the lines as the saying goes. With that comes a great deal of exposure for the rest of the chaff that has little bearing on anything.

What we seem to be missing is critical thinking, and the ability to choose, often, between the lesser of two or more evils.

another perspective

An article in US News & World Report notes that the reputation of the United States in the Islamic World is declining, with eight of ten respondents indicating some level of belief that the U.S. is aligning itself against Islam in many or all respects. Not unexpectedly, the White House denies the notion, calling Islam one of the worlds great religions, (or words to that effect).



I believe both parties in this dispute, and, for the record, believe that the west is arguing apples to the Islamic worlds oranges, and neither party recognizes that.



I realize the dangers of drawing conclusions based on one article, but for the west to see Islam as a religion is somewhat naive. In a similar fashion, for the Islamic world to take exception to its treatment, (that might be defined as a lack of recognition and respect), by the rest of the world is just as simple minded. The west fails to see Islam as more than a religious doctrine, it is a movement to organize society along what are the commonly accepted precepts of God's own will and law. The islamic world, on the other hand, see's the west's willingness to overlook our differences as a sign of weakness, and as being indicative of a need for the imposition of Islam on our ways of life.



Both sides need to back away from this, agree on just how little contact our worlds can tolerate, and work from there. They don't need the west, they have oil to buy any help they might require. We, on the other hand, don't need the Islamic world imposing conditions on us.



Immigration reform? The place to start is not the Rio Grande valley....

On a much more important level, my thanks to those of you who have empathized and sympathjized with my spinal predicament. It has been a bit better the past couple of days, and I usually save my chemical assistance for bedtime.

Like, right now....

pain

I got some of it!

Apparently, I am suffering from two herniated disc's in my neck, and it is causing me copious discomfort. I hope to see the doc pretty soon, and I am both looking forward to, and dreading at the same time, what he has to say...

Y'all be careful.

vaya con dios

Last week, Roy signed out of the blogsphere for what I hope will be a rather short hiatus. His comments, for those of you who haven't visited his site, were a like a slice of a well-lived life, the joys and frustrations that affect all of us.

Roy, if you see this, you remind us that life is lived in the micro and not in the macro or mega.

Come back soon.

summertime is just almost here

aren't we the lucky ones.

more from the news

Rudy Giulliani made the news again this week for two reasons. The first is that he has become, (for the next ten minutes anyway), the leader of the pack in terms of polling numbers and campaign funds in the GOP. He also distinguished himself from the rest of the herd by appearing to hedge on the issue of abortion rights, which caused fellow candidate John McCain to remark that it would be very difficult for anyone not solidly pro-life to get the GOP nod.

Truth is, nobody knows how any of the candidates feel about this issue, we are simply going through one of those phases where every candidate tries to kiss as many asses as possible.

I will be brief with this point, but why is this still an issue? (I have an answer for that, but it is long and complicated and my typing fingers are tired...). The Supreme Court set a precedent in 1973, that gave a little something to both parties. The court upheld a right to privacy, and established a benchmark of fetal viability as the point of no return for a woman to "choose". As medical science and technology have pushed that threshold back, and as the practice of this variety of medicine has become something of a profitable concern, the issue has not died.

As for my opinion, I am an unashamed pro-lifer who tries to mind his business. I can live with the standard that the court set. I freely admit that I am male and don't know what it is like to be pregnant, or to face the decision that women sometimes face, but frankly, I think it is time for both sides to take stock of their positions and try to reconcile themselves to the reality that social as well as personal circumstances change. While these changes have the drawback of putting a bit more pressure on some individuals, they also have the benefit of saving a few lives, in terms of premature births combined with the problems associated with it. Get used to it.

For me, the issue is not abortion per se, it is the tendency to go back and try to win back all the battles lost or stalemates reached, (what is sometimes called compromise). If the radical right was to win this battle, what would be next? Voting rights? Workplace safety and working conditions? These are laws not because some bleeding heart decided to whine to the courts, but because it was seen to be in the best interests of the country to adopt them and move on.


In other news this week, the Senate passed a bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration broad new powers to safeguard the profits of the producers of food and drugs. In what was seen (and in fact, bragged on) as a bipartisan effort to protect the American public, the upper house of the Congress passed a bill that would give the FDA power to not only initially approve products, but to regulate use, distribution of medicines found to be disadvantageous to their constituency.

The truth here is that the FDA would no longer be authorized to collect fees from drug manufacturers to 'speed the review' of new products after September 1, and it was deemed critical to the campaign chests of many Senators and Congresspersons to keep that particular proviso in effect.

Bullshit.

That particular provision is a huge door to graft, corruption and high prices to the consumer. I have said this before, but it bears repeating, the primary constituency of government is business. The individual is merely fodder to guage the various levels of influence that a business or industry has. watch this issue as it moves through the House. Make your opinions known and be sure to vote your incumbents out next time.

Stay focused.

something I saw in the paper...

This past week, I saw an interesting little snippet in the local newspaper. It made an impression on my, if for no other reason than its concide presentation of a logical argument, (I leave it to the individual to decide on the practicality of it...).

Under a headline, (that is overstating it, it was bold print above the text), "OK, you're crazy", the article quoted "conservative columnist" (I never heard of him) Bruce Bartlett as writing that it is "increasingly clear that Democrats will win the White House". OK, I am with him so far. The article goes on to quote him as writing that "politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize this and realize their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat in the field. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Sen. Hillary Clinton."

Wow. The fact the Hilly got a mention in an editorial that was not fiercely partisan is news in itself, but to have been mantled with an analysis that recognizes the fact that she does have strong points, (the ones that it mentions are true and appear to be pragmatically thought out, although not what I would consider an advertising point for any candidate), by a nominal republican no less, is really something else. Maybe not the magnitude of a star appearing in the east, but definately out-of-the-ordinary in this day and age. Mr Bartlett went on to compare the (earlier) Clinton presidency to the current regime, and he appears to have said a lot of nuthin, but he did manage to say that the Bill Clinton administration was "no worse than the current administration and probably better on net".

Maybe this guy is on to something, or maybe he is just crazy. But it adds a little something to the impression that I got from last weeks debate between the various GOP candidates for the White House. Among all the impressions that I got from the event and the coverage that followed, the notion that these guys are lining up to be the heir to Bob Dole, a respected man in his party who was nominated in a race that was considered by his party to be unwinnable. If that is true, then what happens between now and the election will be for the sole purpose of building a foundation for, (on the one hand), or, (on the other), completely destroying the underpinnings of the next presidency.