another one bites the, eh......

Senator Larry Craig of Idaho has been arrested and plead guilty to "lewd misconduct" following an incident in a Minnesota airport men's room. Sen. Craig has been a strong critic of gay rights measures throughout his career in the House and Senate, and has repeatedly denied allegations that he is himself gay or bisexual.

Big deal.

OK, it is. But the presence of homosexuality in this episode will cloud a very significant aspect of this and many other non gay related cases. The guy is insulated from real life by his position in the government and his access to power and money and 'strings' that can be pulled on his or someone else's behalf. When the Senator was arrested in the can, trying to pick up a little action in the men's room, he presented the officer with a business card identifying him as a United States Senator, while gloating out load "what do you think of that?".

Apparently not much. The Senator was still arrested. Following his guilty plea, he received a sentence of unsupervised probation. The hit that his political career will take remains to be seen, but it is clear that he resides in the same social strata as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan. And frankly, the Senator and most of his peers in theCongress have about as much real impact as those two.

Why don't we change that?

I am not sure what it would take, (save for strong leadership from theexecutive branch, the leadership of both houses of the congress, and unrelenting pressure from the electorate....), but it could be done. It would probably require a constitutional amendment spelling out pay & benefits, a re-enunciation of the role of the Congress, certain parliamentary rules for both houses, and the length of sessions. (Yeah, right, so what will we do after lunch....?).

Here are a few ideas:

Line item veto? How about line item legislation? It would eliminate the need for a third party to exercise undue influence over legislation piecemeal, (are you listening George W?), and it would bring a little sunshine into the legislative process. Cumbersome? You bet. It would be up to these highly paid professionals to manage the process, and to eliminate those items that would clog the arteries of government wherever possible. Legislation could still be considered as a package, but each individual expenditure would have to be passed by a roll call vote, with votes being published in a very conspicuous fashion.

Term limits? This is a pretty controversial topic. I go back and forth with myself on this. On the one hand, we have elections, and the notion that if somebody is a crook or a bum or a lush or a pervert or whatever, then we can get rid of them. On the other hand, we have the notion that you really cannot spend years in a cesspool without getting a little stink on you. Limit the stink and a lot of this goes away.

Perq's? Tax the hell out of them. Health care? Make the level of health care above the national average taxable at a rate of 100%. Period. Eliminate the Congressional retirement benefit. How's that for a term limiter? The idea here is to make these positions slightly less attractive, and abit more in line with the position that the average citizen finds him/herself in. A position in Congress should be a tour of duty, not a vocation. Even for the most capable, most reliable of public minded citizens, the job of having to outdo themselves periodically in that circus we call an election season is like sand in the oil of a gasoline engine. It just can't last.

is there no beginning to the sanity of it?

This has been a long year. There are just over 14 months to go until the next general election and it is already burning me out. For whatever it is worth to either of you who look in from time to time, I am calling it a Clinton-Giuliani matchup right now. If I am right, how it will go is anyone's guess----ditto if I am wrong.

I will say that regardless of party affilliation, the country will go for the candidate that best represents credibility. People, like me and at least a couple of you, are fairly sick of just almost everything, either what the shadow government (big business) or the elected government does or does not do, or the way that it goes about it. An article today from MSNBC alleges what seems to me to be fairly widespread corruption and fraud on the part of American nationals, (civilian contractors, government officials and soldiers) in Iraq, and something that may be considered to be a coverup on the part of the government itself. The fact of the corruption does not surprise me much, the way that it is being dealt with does. This war has been as much about opening the public treasury to certain well-connected interests as it has about anything else. But I digress.

What people will support more than anything else next year is credibility in terms of character and strategy, and transparency in its subsequent implimentation. Right now, the GOP has a big problem with both of those qualities, tho the Dem's are racing to catch up, and the front-runner on the left brings a truckload of her own baggage in those particular areas. The election itself will be a bellwhether of sorts, already the placement of primary dates is like the 'Gong Show' of politics, the actual elections will be closely watched for any indication of fraud or tampering. I believe that any attempt to subvert the balloting process, (or even the appearance of such) will be dealt with, one way or another. It may be through the legal system, but I doubt it, as that too has its problems with its image in terms of justice vs money.

This will be interesting to watch.

what goes around....

Well, the Cold War seems to have rekindled. Our erstwhile allies, (that is, when they need something), Russia, has begun a series of routine bomber patrols that bring their aircraft within shouting distance of American bases or territories. While this is happening, the Russians and Chinese are conducting joint military exercises in central asia, with the unspoken intent of demonstrating that American presence is unneeded and unwelcome in the region. This of course will provoke a similarly benign response from the US, and it will spiral on from there, slowly perhaps, but it will escalate.

The script for the new conflict seems to be similar to the basic scenario of the last cold war, spend your adversary into oblivion, although the roles appear to be reversed this time. We, who were widely perceived to have been the 'good guys' last time are now cast in the role of the 'evil empire'. With our economy structured as it is, and stretched as it is across the globe, that is not an implausible scenario. I am not saying that they will win, I am saying that we had better get used to a different way of life and standard of living, not to mention a whole different idea of how we treat the rest of the world, for the forseeable future.

First and foremost, we need to offer sincere respect and compassion to all peoples, everywhere. No money, no aid, no weapons, but all the respect and good will that they can handle. Secondly, as badly as it will hurt, we need to do something about exporting our largest bargaining chip, technological and scientific expertise to anyone willing to use it cheaper than American workers.
This is not limited to weaponry and military systems, I am also talking about iPods, cars and consumer goods. This will be painful to those economic elements in our society bent on using the cheapest of labor and materials and to hell with the ramifications. It will be painful to the rest of us who will live with the price and wage shock that comes with it.

Then there is the subject of the draft. Most people think of the draft as the conscript of males in the 18-24 age demographic for compulsory military service, but that is not what I am talking about. If you want to know who is on the front lines of this war, go look in the mirror. If you want to know where much of the battles are being fought, (and go largely unnoticed), look at the map below.

The new weapon that we as citizen soldiers need to master is self-denial. For Americans, that does'nt come easy. For baby boomers and the Mastercard generations, it is that much harder. But the signs of the apocolypse are all around us. We really need to avoid, as much as is possible, shipping our consumer dollars overseas with our purchases of cars, electronics, clothing, damn near everything. Behave as though every dollar that you spend could break you, because it can, no matter how many more you have. Shopping at places like these, that specialize in utilizing the very cheapest of materials and labor in order to maximize profit while keeping prices marginally below the competition are more of a threat to our way of life than all the terrorist's in the world (and thier cousins).

Now, to end this on a relevant note, I want to hear a national candidate mention something, anything along these lines. He or she does not have to agree with me, I just want to hear it acknowledged, even if they think that I am full of something bovine and odiferous.

Bet it doesn't happen. Too much money in burying our collective heads in the sand.

I don't have a crystal ball, and, I could be wrong about this, I hope I am but don't believe so.

How do you see the next two decades shaping up, for you individually and for the country as a whole?

for you literary types...

" Summer "

a poem

Barak takes a stand, all others take cover.

This past week, Sen Barak Obama stepped out on a limb to note that he would pull troops out of Iraq and commit them to battle in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan. He has been roundly chastised by his fellow Democrats, and most Republicans, (except notably Rudy Giulliani, who hedged on the issue), for his stance vis a' vis our ostensible ally in the war on terror, he has taken a solid stand on an issue, and created what may be the first real measuring point in this election.

On one side of this issue is the notion that we should do nothing to destabilize the current regime in Pakistan, and possibly turn that country against us. On the other side of this issue is the notion that our enemy, al Qaida, and its political front, the Taliban, is using the no mans land in the northwest part of that country as sanctuary.

The issue here seems to be this : Can the war on terror, (spell that term I-S-L-A-M-I-C - E-X-T-R-E-M-I-S-M ) be won without crushing the organization that sponsors and promotes the practice throughout the region and the world?

That is not as simple as it seems, but definately worth talking about, in the open, in plain english, and not just for 20 or 30 seconds in a debate or a commercial.

I remain uncommitted in this race, but I applaud Senator Obama for bringing it up. It may be naive, it may be simplistic, and it may not be practical, but I leave that to Senator's Clinton, McCain and Governor Romney to convince me. Just because a party or candidate attaches an adjective to an idea does not make it good or bad. It needs to be talked about, openly, and a candidate of any stripe who won't defend his or her views, respectfully, is not worth my time or vote.