Nail Biter at the New Galen Center

Funny. While I was writing the latest political ramblings, I watched the UCLA Bruins battle the USC Trojans in the new Galen Center (the new facility in which the "other" team plays basketball). *Sigh*. It was hard to type while sitting on the edge of my seat. During the majority of the game, UCLA was behind ten points. After last week's loss to the University of Oregon and their plummet from number one to four, I thought, "When it rains, it pours".

But, you have to hand it to my team. With utter determination, the Bruins bounced back and rallied to win against their mid-town rivals. All starters played great despite the constant droning of the hated Trojan fight song. Darren Collison, of course, was sensational. Aaron Aflalo and Lorenzo Mata weren't bad either. Mata surprised me. He did a spectacular job with making it to the hoops with ease.

But, the Bruins have to work with their first quarter sluggishness. If they play lackidasial in the first half, they reap what they sow when they trail behind the other team (case in point with their last game against Oregon). However, I was pleased with the free throws made by UCLA.

Conventional wisdom always says that free throws are what eventually wins the game. You can always say the three-pointers help things along, but it always comes down to the charity strike. In this area, my team keeps on improving.

In the end, I was impressed with their ability to be resilient when the chips are against them. They don't call UCLA the "gutty little Bruins" for nothing. ;)

Mr. Bush and His "Legacy"

A lot of talk has gone on in the media about Mr. Bush's legacy. In fact, The New York Times recently had a very fascinating article about how the Republicans have to grapple with this legacy when it comes to the 2008 elections. The item put it bluntly that with no appointed successor from the current President of the United States, the Republicans have to deal with the increasing unpopularity of the war as well as their stance against the current Administration's policies:

On the Hill, meanwhile, even those who did support the president’s plan in Iraq offered less than the hearty endorsements of the troop surge. Some, like Mr. Warner, said they needed more information before they committed to any increase. At an Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday, Mr. Warner asked the Pentagon to provide results of the war game analyses it has done to evaluate the results of adding more troops.

In the House, as fierce a partisan as Representative Jack Kingston said he was not ready to lend full support, but looked forward to hearings on the plan.

Other Republicans supported the president but emphasized that the commitment in Iraq must not be open-ended — a Democratic refrain. And they argued for the need for benchmarks to evaluate the success of the increase, all of which leaves room for them to peel away from the president if the war does not show more success soon.

Heading toward 2008, Republicans are no longer expecting the kind of party discipline on the war that they expected in 2006. Instead, party leaders say members must speak their consciences.

To the most cynical, it might seem that the rats are trying to jump from the sinking ship. Believe it or not, GOP candidates will have to make a decision: to either save themselves or to continue in blind allegiance to the current administration despite the widespread criticism from America's foreign policy. Strangely enough, the article mentions something that is central to this decision: the fact that they might have to find their consciences in order to survive politically.

When Mr. Bush and his policies were bandied about in the press and in his speeches, there was no question of whether his colleagues would have a conscience or not. Especially before the November 2006 elections, empathy seemed miles away when it came to questions regarding America's participation in Iraq. Despite pertinent questions about the President's policies overseas, they staunchly stood behind their leader without question. It seemed at times that their denial of the wrongs committed during the "occupation" seemed rather stifling.

The shoe had to drop when the scandals started to seep over the surface. As if the problems of former Representative Tom Delay wasn't enough, the Foley and Abramoff scandals were the tip of the iceberg. By November 2006, these stories along with the realisation of the increasing casualties of war had brought about a sense of disgust--along with sentiment overseas.

Talk about "cutting and running". By all indications of this article, it seems that "cutting and running" is precisely what GOP candidates are doing to ensure their own political survival.

And survival is what exactly what they are focusing on when considering the endeavors of Mr. Bush and his stance toward Iraq.

They say politics is a fickle business. When popularity of a party or a policy sweeps the citizenry, the national leaders embrace it with all their fervor. And then, when bottom falls out, those astute enough to see the winds of change distance themselves enough to stay out of the fray. To make a long story short, siding with the President right now is a tricky business due to the fact that the public has gotten wind of the ineptitude and the sheer arrogance when dealing with national and international policy. It is to the point that no matter how much propaganda is being pushed toward nationalism and supporting the troops, not even blindness will turn away the criticism that has erupted over the troubled policies that Mr. Bush has embraced.

This is a time of reckoning for both the Dems and the GOP. For the GOP, they have to embark upon their own soul searching efforts in order to stay buoyant in rocky political times. The Dems have to see this fact and use it to their own advantage. Not only do they have to stay faithful to their "First 100 hours" policy (of which they have made good on), but also they have to use this time to introduce civility and a search for the truth to satiate five years of inquiries posed by those who have scrutinized the actions of the current Administration.

All in all, yes, Mr. Bush has to be very concerned about how historians will treat him. But, one might suppose that his so-called "legacy" might be out of his hands if his own party begins to question his actions.

Oversight Committees Are Needed To Correct Goverment

On the political front, there is a lot of news regarding the hearing which placed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others into the hot seat. While there, her pained, but cool demeanor tried to dampen the rising criticism about the Iraqi war. However, it all seemed to only deflect the issue. Not only that, it highlighted the desperate need for investigations to happen in order to get answers to the most dire issues that is affecting all of us.

There seems to be the train of thought that the American people cannot take seeing their leaders prosecuted for the wrongs they committed in government. This idea was especially communicated during the funeral of former President Gerald R. Ford. The problem with this idea is that our politicians are under the perception that we as citizens faint at the sight of any governmental bloodletting that seems to happen. This idea also seems to convey the lack of faith in our understanding of events, let alone the absorption of the gravity that investigations might reveal.

Yes, Americans are slowly starting to wake up about the travesty their country is in. The events that have painted the last five years have finally come to the surface because there is a growing tiredness about being led around and around without any stoppage. To put it more bluntly, people are sick and tired of the BS that is being fed to them from the media and the propaganda that seems to hide the realities of a government that is troubled and fractured, to say the least.

It is eye-opening that despite it might hurt, some Republicans have even faced facts and criticized the handling of America's foreign policy. The party that seemed to be formed by Tom "The Hammer" Delay and propagandized by Karl Rove seems to be trying to change their spots. It might be the fact that some are politically astute to how the temper of the American people can change with the times. After all, the November 2006 elections were one in which frustration had bubbled over and people started to see their consciences when it came to wanting to get the goverment back to serving its constituents.

Contrary to the fear that the American people "might not take what comes out", investigations are good when they aren't used for petty partisan tactics. There are facts about our current situation in the world that need to be known. In the past, certain documents had come to light (such as the Dowling Street documents) to alert the public about how the need for war has been created. Mr. Bush's speech this week also gave some warning signals about why a search for the truth needs to be done.

When it is all said and done, it would be nice if historians would say that depsite the dark ages of America during the Bush era that there were responsible politicians who looked past the media fluffery and punditry to try and set things right. A public accounting can start to find the soul of the United States. We've had it up to here with denial. And denial can only resolve to cloud the issue and make things worse than it already is.

When putting national and international events into perspective, there needs to be some accounting and admittance of what went wrong. For future leaders, this time can turn into one that could teach them what and what not to do when leading the people. For the rest of us, this time can teach us not to turn to denial when seeing the writing on the wall and to be more responsive when our national leaders do not do what we sent them to the Capital for.

For the future journalists out there, these times can also teach them a thing or two about not being hushed into silence when approaching the subject matter that affects all of us. The Fourth Estate also needs to clean house. It becomes increasingly tiresome to hear the cheerleading of certain individuals who are cowed into silence and preventing the public's right to know. Furthermore, those in the media not only have to be competitive for stories, but to also stand by their colleagues when one of them is penalized regarding their freedom of speech.

Most of all, the tenets of the Constitution should be reconsidered, especially when they have been toyed with by the passage of past laws that restrict civil liberties. 9/11 was a horrible and unspeakable event, for sure. But one thing must come to mind when considering this fact: a democracy ceases to exist if we leave our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in hands of the selfish who do nothing but abuse it. To root out the abuse, this is more than relevant.

The beauty of such committees is the fact that like Watergate and the Iran-Contra Scandals it will be publicized on television. Although the media is more centrally corporate than it has been in the past, this step must be taken in order for us to get to what we desire to know, warts and all.

And believe it or not, the warts are exactly what is needed.

Some News about the Blog

Hello all,

Before I write more about the realm of society and politics, I would like to announce a contact e-mail for Ceci's News and Views. If you would like to contact me about the blog or drop a note to say hello, here it is:

ceci.news@yahoo.com

It is there for you to send your comments and suggestions as well as other matters that might need to come to my attention. :)

All I ask is that you do not send spam.

In the new year, there is more to come from the blog, so stay tuned and continue reading!

Take good care,

Ceci :)

Tarnished Tinsel and Political Waves

My holiday was quite all right for the most part. I got a chance to see family and friends, not to mention travel a little in order to get away from it all. I reveled in bowl and basketball games (although I'm quite saddened over the Bruins' loss to Oregon last week :( ). However, it wasn't so bright enough to cover the little ripples of change coming over Washington D.C. and the rest of the nation.

It was sad to hear about the deaths of James Brown (who I still remember Mr. Brown performing "Living in America" in the "Rocky" movies.) and Yvonne De Carlo (the most fascinating "Munster" of them all). The melancholy nature of the passing of President Ford also clouded the holiday season because no matter what political stripe you are, it is a solemn and rather reflectful experience in seeing a former national leader pass.

During the televising of the entire event of Former President Ford's Funeral activities, it was quite interesting and impressive to hear the memories of my older family members--especially when it came down to their perception of the people who attended the ceremonies. It was also fascinating to hear them recall how they perceived the record of Mr. Ford's work in office, especially when it came down to his pardoning of Mr. Nixon. And still, the most interesting thoughts came about when they watched and commented on Mr. Ford's widow, Betty Ford.

For the most part, the consensus came that she held herself up pretty well until the internment. The weight of his passing seemed to take a toll on her. Even here, despite the political differences, one can feel a sense of sadness to see her small frame lean against her military escort as she was led to the final resting place of the President. Apart of the drama and cinematic fervor of the Reagan funeral (not to mention Mrs. Reagan in her large sunglasses behind the family in the National Cathedral), Mrs. Ford and her family were stoic and rather melancholy as they followed Mr. Ford on his final journey to his Presidential library in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It was quiet and rather sad to note that the past has gone on.

The only ironic and rather amusing thing about the entire event was seeing the dignitaries such as Vice-President Cheney, the past Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and even the ever ubiquitous Henry Kissenger try to pray and sing the hymns (well, rather mouthing the words). It was hard not to notice that only former President Clinton actually sang and closed his eyes when he prayed while the others only seemed to go through the routine--in a sense of an opinion.

(It's up to you to figure out that conundrum.)

Now, as the curtains closed on one era, still yet another very present one hovers at the surface.

While facing the defeat regarding the (American) football teams of Michigan (in the Rose bowl) and UCLA (in the Emerald Bowl) and watching the vibrant proposal between Boise St. player Ian Johnson and his girlfriend (the head cheerleader), the news of Saddam Hussein's execution came to the fore. That too, was a startling event. It is hard to believe that after all these years the Iraqi leader was dead. There is yet more to be said about this event. But to make a long story short, his death (and the capturing of it on-line and television) marks the beginning of more contentious times in Iraq.

Mr. Saddam's death has caused a lot of controversy, to say the least. And it becomes more marked in the speech given by the current Present of the United States, George W. Bush. Mr. Bush's speech today was rather hard to hear despite his usual look of a "deer in the headlights". When thinking about the Iraqi leader's execution and putting it into perspective, the call for more troops seems to exacerbate a situation already brimming over the surface. Mr. Bush still didn't believe that Iraq was in the midst of a civil war. Yet, it seems rather futile to send more American lives over to the Middle East to try and clean up a situation all of his doing.

For the most part, he was doing his part to stop the bleeding that has already occurred since the bombs fell on Baghdad in 2003. His "take" on Iraq was more of the same old thing. After all, his catch phrases were words we've all heard before in so many speeches--especially when trying tie the war in Iraq to 9/11.

I guess, it is cynicism on my part to note that his speech did nothing to shed light on the problems occurring from the "occupation" and the disaster it produced afterward. His words did nothing to console the lives already lost, nor did it provide any ample growth from a sort of understanding of the weight of his decisions. Instead, it sounded false. It also conveyed a sense of not really feeling the weight of responsibility regarding what the President and his colleagues had done to another country.

His words were probably those considered when "preaching to the choir": a group of Americans who still stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the realities of what this conflict has done not only to the nation, but the world. To them, it probably sounded reassuring.

To the rest of us, however, it only meant the same old song and dance in a continuous loop.

The good thing about this time is that a lot of us know this, especially after a law came on the books regarding the President having the power to read people's mail.

The frightening thing is the mention of turning the war drums toward Iran. I wonder if anyone has attempted to ask our national leader if he has bitten off more than he can chew?