Intolerance, Pt II

Even though there are probably more noteworthy events to discuss, I would like to say a few words about forums and intolerance. Let's just say that this is a little story for other people fighting intolerance to follow.

The last few weeks were spent trying to be acclimated back to board life. And of course, old feelings die hard when it comes to a group of posters who are hell-bent making the worst out of a board experience. It is sad to say so, but unfortunately, their efforts and relentless use of "complaining" has shut down threads on diversity because they will not make the effort or time to understand the other side of things.

In the midst of this, words were said. And of course, the person who made the thread on diversity got punished because the culturally insensitive had gotten their way without any questioning of their behavior.

Because of the fact that the "cabal" got off Scot free from their nastiness (and the fact that I came across this story), there is nothing but pessimism when it comes to healing and social progress. When hearing this story, I could just think to myself and think that the intolerant have the loudest voices while the sensitive and the erudite continue to get pounded.

You could almost guess the punchline of the story.

They come away, smug and happy that they shut down a thread of diversity because it attacked everything that they held dear. But who actually wins? No one. For a thread about diversity is there to educate people and to generate conversation with those who are genuine in their approach to bring all people together. And its closure only conveys the point that we have so far to go in trying heal the cultural divide in America, if not the world. That is the saddest of all.

The only thing about vendettas is the fact that they are only temporary. But for those involved, they are probably happy that their interests are safe and secure while others suffer at the yoke of intolerance.

There's no one to blame. And there's no one to complain to. Just chalk this up to a lesson well learned in the midst of viewing the heavy-handed tactics of some who don't want to entertain things outside of their comfort zone.

---------------------------

Despite my absence, there is more to come soon. I have lots to talk about and yes, election season is here. So, stay tuned and keep reading. I apologize for the length of absence between the last post and the latest. I thank you very much for your patronage over the months.

...And Then, There Was "The State of the Union"

This is a "Ceci's News and Views" Special Report:

Gone was the "Bring Them On" rhetoric along with the constant mention of Saddam Hussein. After all, for the last few years, Mr. Saddam was the cornerstone of President George W. Bush's speeches, especially when he was preaching to the choir about the events in Iraq. However, a notable absence from his words last night was to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina. The rebuilding of their city was left behind in the dust. Even more apparent is the lack of mention afforded to the outcome of the NSA program. That alone affected a lot of Americans.

And still, his platitudes reeked of California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger's actions before the November 2006 elections. In short, Mr. Bush appropriated liberal causes only to save his derriere from the fryer when having a low approval rating of 28 per-cent.

Oh yes, his remarks were expedient, to be sure. Being quick is nice. However, sincerity and inspiring is better. Unfortunately for the President of the United States, the speech did not display the latter. It was the same, bland, "deer-in-the-headlights" wording that we have put up with for the last six years. The only thing that was "self-evident" reflected when the pandering was going to stop.

But that wasn't all reflected in Mr. Bush's words. Oh, yes, my friends, the State of the Union Address was something more, much more. Shall we see?

Cutting the Budget Deficit

Here are his words from the State of the Union Address:

First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause.) We can do so without raising taxes. (Applause.) What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause.) I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget.

This is a very big statement to make when a plethora of money has been poured into the War on Terrorism, the conflicts abroad as well as the large tax breaks given to corporations. Unfortunately, his proposal is rather a "pie in the sky" approach. He spent the surplus left by President Clinton's Administration. This is also hard to believe knowing the hints thrown at us in speeches related to an escalation of hostilities with Iran. Frankly, simply cutting programs (and especially those that help the Middle, working classes and the poor) will not work to achieve this end.

It would take a miracle to halve the deficit. Knowing how much money America is in the hole, we are right now treading toward a "debtor status" if we are not there already. The frustrating thing is that it sounds good when it is spoken in its attempts to draw back the disaffected. In the end, we will all feel it when it hits us in the pocketbook, regardless of political platform. Sadly, the people who will probably feel the worst hurt from his tight-fisted tactics are those who voted against their best interests in the past elections.

What is also critically important to note about his policies regarding the economy is this tidbit from Op-Ed News.com. They are rather interesting points to consider when weighing style and substance:

Continuing Bush's economic policies would do little to stimulate growth and would worsen the country's fiscal health.

BUSH'S TAX CUTS THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO BUDGET DEFICITS: Tax cuts "have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits." The Congressional Budget Office reports that tax cuts enacted from 2001 to 2006 were responsible for 51 percent of the deterioration in the budget. "Between 2001 and 2006, the passage of the Bush tax cuts without the offsetting savings have cost $1.2 trillion in lost revenues, or more than 80 percent of the cumulative deficit during this period."

Only a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending.

DEFICITS HAVE MUSHROOMED UNDER BUSH: Bush has "never proposed a balanced budget since it went into deficit, never vetoed a spending bill when Republicans controlled Congress and offered little sustained objection to earmarks until the issue gained political traction last year." Bush and Congress took an inherited surplus and have transformed it into a mountain of debt -- the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reports that legislation enacted over the last six years increased the national debt by $2.3 trillion, including $633 billion in interest payments alone. "The budget outlook for the period 2002 to 2011 deteriorated by $8.5 trillion from 2001 to 2006 and for 2006, it decreased by $753 billion."

When you factor in all the money Mr. Bush spent over the last years, it is virtually impossible to take his assurances as affirmative. What it accounts for is that the American President raised the level of debt so high for the sake of his policies, there is no way that he can set out what he proposed in the State of the Union. Instead, he had set in motion the slow descent of financial drudgery due to poor policies, both foreign and domestic resulting in the lack of consideration and foresight.

More Woes for Health Care

Again, from the State of the Union address:

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. (Applause.) When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. (Applause.) But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

The problem with his ideas about health care is that the Middle Class ends up paying the costs for the uninsured:

First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.

The nature of this proposal is the fact that instead of going to the rich (after all, aren't they paying taxes too?), he tries to take money out of the pockets of those who need their money the most. Instead of providing relief, he is robbing Peter to pay Paul. This suggestion in the State of the Union is rather poor policy, even though it might sound good to the Americans who need it the most. He could have proposed socialized health care, which is sponsored by the government. However, he is taking it out of the hands of the government and placing it on the people's hands to insure citizens who are unable to afford health care.

What is important to note is that with all the money spent on defense while building up the deficit, some of that funding could have been diverted to set up a very good system in this country. It is already bad that the lack of jobs has caused a plethora of Americans to be unemployed and unable to pay for their daily expenses. It is worse when he pits the Middle Class against the Working poor while the rich come off unscathed. So, are you convinced that he was only speaking to the "haves" and the "have mores"?

Op Ed News seems to think so:

Bush's health care plan fails to help the nearly 47 million Americans without health insurance, will cause employers to drop health coverage without any real alternative, and put health care out of reach for millions of Americans.

UNINSURED AMERICANS WILL RECEIVE LITTLE HELP AND MUST TURN TO EXPENSIVE COVERAGE: This scheme would replace one regressive, flawed tax deduction with another -- and since most uninsured Americans pay low or no taxes, they would receive little help from this plan.

In addition, Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University researcher who co-authored a 2001 study on the individual health-insurance market for the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that people who aren't in perfect health are largely unable to buy individual health insurance.

In her study, Pollitz found that "roughly 90% of applicants in what's known as less-than-perfect health were unable to buy individual policies at standard rates, while 37% were rejected outright." Individual health insurers may deny coverage to people based on their medial history, or put them in "a high-risk category that it makes health coverage too expensive."

BUSH'S PLAN WILL DISCOURAGE EMPLOYERS FROM OFFERING QUALITY COVERAGE: Sixty-one percent of companies offer at least some of their employees health insurance, a drop of 8 percentage points since 2000.

Once you read the analysis presented by OpEdNews.com, the sadder it seems. There is more of a lack of empathy than people seem to think if the policies regarding health care are truly enforced. This would create a system in which the winners continue to be people who are stil on top.

Iraq And All That Stuff

Most of the meat of his speech centered on the War on Terror, Iran and Iraq. Afghanistan was hardly mentioned. And of course, there was the same obligatory nods toward a specific soldier and his family (while they sit behind the beaming Mrs. Bush). These things are good to be noted. However, this "feel good" tactic does not seem to help the drastic situation made more caustic by ineptitude and negligence when it comes to foregin diplomacy. Clearly, Mr. Bush will not "cut and run" from his policy of not listening to the American people as well as Congress. The sad thing is that no matter how many "no confidence" resolutions our politicians pass, the American President is dead set on adding more troops overseas. Unfortunately, there will be a plethora of tears to be shed as a result of the escalating casualties.

Even more cumbersome is the continued harping on issues that solicit the fear and ire of the American people. In the past, terror and national security has always been Mr. Bush's bread and butter. When all of his other policies fell short in the eyes of United States citizens, one mention of "terrorism" and everyone snaps back into obeyance. The problem with this approach is that people are tired of being scared. Some even want to be ensconsced in normality. It is unfortunate when terrorism is mentioned, immigration is also included in the same breath. That alone presents a tiresome, but necessary lean toward the nostalgia relegated to the nationalistic residue inflicted by September 11, 2001.

And while the fear and terror has been stirred up to a gigantic crescendo, there is this little nugget to note along with the plea for more troops:

And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. (Applause.) Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Applause.) A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

This proposal conveys two things. First, it seems as if the "Civilian Reserve Corps" reflects an armed mercenary group. Secondly, the proposal glosses over the fact that military is already filled with people who volunteered. With that being said, one has to wonder what he meant with this suggestion. Are the civilians supposed to be like the Peace Corps? Or, are they more like a militia to help in the fighting? Or, is this the next step toward conscription?

The scary notion also derived from such a stance is the fact that if hostilities spread toward Iran, the "Civilian Reserve Corps" paves a way toward a draft as a possibility. It is horrible that even the National Guard has to undergo more tours overseas than necessary. Unfortunately, with troops being strained already in two places of war (Iraq and Afghanistan), one more would set things to a head.

With the casual mentions of Iran within the rhetoric of building support for the war, there is a constant foreshadowing of a wider theater of conflict America cannot afford (monetarily and humanistically) to fight. Iran is a bigger fish in the Middle East with a fully equipped army. If Mr. Bush proposes that Iran might be brought into the larger scale of conflict in that region in the world, a draft would be definitely brought into the realm of reality. Yet, even he must remember the times during the Vietnam era what the draft did to tear the country apart. With that being said, his promise at the beginning of his run in the 2000 election of being a "Uniter" ends up being thrown out the window. That is neither here, nor there by now. Because of his widespread rhetoric of fear and terror, one could only propose he forgets the emotionalism and protests over the draft. Thus, such a policy of dealing with Iran in a state of war must be tailored carefully enough that tensions could be solved diplomatically instead of "carrying a big stick".

Mr. Bush's words, nevertheless, was truly shameful on this accord. It is frustrating that he would bring up Iran in the same breath as Afghanistan and Iraq. He has already bitten off more than he can chew with a conflict brought about by his own doing. Surely, the President of the United States must have overestimated what might happen in the Middle East by America's insertion there. What makes him think that bringing more troops in the Middle East will make things more secure, let alone lower the growing sectarian violence there? Civilians will not tip the scale in this accord. Instead, their involvement would only bring further proof that the United States is operating an "occupation". In this stance, war is never humanitarian. The price of democracy cannot be bought by the waving of a gun.

Where We Are In Light of the State of the Union

All in all, Mr. Bush's words only provided a smoke screen over the larger problems festering at the surface abroad and within the nation. Hearing how the President did not mention a lot of the difficulties that Americans are experiencing, the State of the Union right now dims in comparison to the United States leader has provided last night. It is not easy to say this because the message brought about by such a speech is to keep citizens abreast on how the country is doing. The worst of it all, what it did was reinforce the lie that everything between the borders of the East and West coast was all right.

That made his words rather hard to hear, especially in light what the public already knows through the stories reported about the present Administration. It has even gotten to the point that even though the media cheerleaders still exist, there are items daily that seem to dim the glow of the "rah rah" atmosphere. When especially there are people we know in our daily life who are serving overseas, suffering due to lack of employment and health care, and loved ones struggling to make ends meet, his words fall false.

It's not to say that Mr. Bush's words were laughable. They weren't. It is simply the fact that the speech fell flat on the matters most important to the nation. Instead, the text focused upon pipe dreams that are hard to make into reality. Consquently, the State of the Union appeared on television to be little more than a dog and pony show in which the false belief applies to the notion that when the President speaks, people will applaud. Those claps are wasted because they only serve to heighten the irony that juxstaposes itself against the realities brought about by the policies of the current Administration.

The only thing to take heart is the fact that Mr. Bush's words, highly scrutinized to be sure, can only help Americans to be more cautious and intelligent about choosing their next national leadership next year. Let the lesson be learned that the choices we pick can not only affects us politically and fiscally, but in terms of sustaining our nation in times of distress and crisis. The other thing hopefully learned is that the people of the United States (if not the world) will not be fooled.

We have already been there and done that.

Good News

Some exciting news has come to pass during the last week. I am among my ATS family once again. My "absence" has been lifted. It has been wonderful to be back with my friends and to catch up on the news going on. I am especially thankful for all the well wishes sent to me upon my return. The e-mails, comments and posts sent to me made my day. :)

With the kind notes from the people I care about on ATS and off, I believe that the best part of being part of something important is not posting; it is the marvelous friends that I have made over my tenure there. It is their support, kindness and well wishes that have brought me the upmost happiness. And during my "absence", their words had brought me comfort and care when I was down. It is their words that I cherish.

Both here and the "blog from X-mas past" (hopefully present), their ideas, ruminances and assurances have brought me hope, comfort, inspiration and courage. And I thank them for their interest and friendship. I definitely thrilled to be among them once again.

That leaves some news about the coming changes on this blog and my activity on that forum.

For now, I am mainly focusing on blog writing when I can due to work and real life. As for the posting? That will be in a little while. As much as I relish a good debate with others on the forum, I would much quietly settle back and take things slow for now. No fistacuffs for a while--a *long* while.

What does that mean for the blog here? This blog will still be written because there is still a lot of writing to be done here. I enjoy talking about politics and society. And of course, I have many things to discuss, especially with the aftermath of the State of the Union address last night.

So, don't think for a minute that this blog will be abandoned. It will not. It is now that my life has widened up for a bit on-line and off. And it is time to put everything into focus.

One thing is very certain: I enjoy writing and conversing with others thoughtfully on the events of the day. I will continue to do so.

Please continue to visit here and post your comments. I enjoy them and will try to write back when I can. Sometimes, my work makes it hard to respond to you right away, but I always make an effort to try and post my comments back to you because you took the time to leave interesting and fascinating remarks here from time to time.

And yes, when the spirit moves me, I'll will become very long winded. But I assure you that I will put as much effort into it as I can to produce meaningful and meticulous think pieces in order to generate discussion and thought.

And remember, if you have something you would like to contact me in regards of the blog or if you would like to say hi, send an e-mail to:

ceci.news@yahoo.com.

And again, the only thing I don't like is spam.

Other than that, I thank you all for reading the blog these past months.

Now, it's time to dig deep into the issues of the day! :)

Take good care,

Ceci :)

Thoughts About Sen. Hillary Clinton As Democratic Presidential Candidate

Senator Hillary Clinton (D.-NY) announced on her website that she is setting up an exploratory committee for her candidacy as President of the United States Saturday. As soon as she said the word, the news unleashed a flurry of mixed emotions inside and out of the Democratic party.

Okay. We know what the Republicans are saying about Sen. Clinton. In fact, I'm sure that some of the Right Wing Pundits are grinding their axes at this moment. They're probably thirsting for a little tidbit to spin into the slightest controversy as a way to produce another weapon of mass distraction.

As if the reportage on the lost boys were enough.

After a day of thinking about it, there are definite feelings about whether Sen. Clinton clinches the Dems nominee for President. Answers from the callers of my favorite talk show (progressive, of course) revealed that some would not vote for the New York Senator because she represents a "professional politician" (whatever that means). The criticism also went forth that if she were to be elected, it would be more of the same old thing. After all, the last twelve years were capitalized by two dynasties: the Clintons and the Bushes. A vote for her would surely be beating the same drum instead of producing someone different. And of course, the fundraising from Rupert Murdoch doesn't help her case.

On the positive side, there are Dems who think she is a strong choice and representative of future trends in the United States. Instead of an office which has historically elected men, a strong woman would be apropo to usher in change. She is definitely a political survivor who has stood up for what she believed in as First Lady. She also took charge whenever she sat in hearings. However, other Dems are rather distressed by her lack of a stand on the second Iraqi War. Not to mention her absence on several important issues that begged for one politician on the left to speak up.

Well, Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio) spoke up at key times at the risk of their reputation and standing in Congress. Mr. Feingold, with a few other colleagues, pressed for a Censure for President Bush. Mr. Kucinich has constantly questioned the financial benefits that oil corporations received while the working class were stiffled by the constant rise in gas prices. Rep. Barbara Lee (D.-Calif.) took a stand at the very beginning of the Iraqi War by refusing to endorse her support for a conflict she still had questions on.

But, some ask, where was Hillary?

And now, she presents a message announcing her interest in being the President of the United States, if elected.

Very timely, to be sure. Her message to her constituents and supports happened nearly a week after Senator Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) announced plans to explore his options for running for the top job in the land.

Sen. Clinton would be formidable opponent to be sure. She possess the savvy and the insight to work the wheels beyond the Beltway. She would not wilt from the criticism thrown at her. However, the misgivings of those Dems who are not so willing to have her run might be the lynchpin. One would have to wait and see whether she can win over this percentage of the party who still levy questions toward her positions and political alliances in the past.

No doubt, the elections in November 2008 will be very important for the entire country. After all, the current Administration has set a precendent what not to look for a leader. With the choices out there putting their hats in the ring, it is understandable that the American citizens are rather gunshy right now. After all, what is needed is some who can lead, mop up the messes overseas and can bring our troops home. What is also needed is someone who is very charismatic and inspiring. Unfortunately for the last eight years, that was sorely missed even when the United States had fallen into dire straits due to terrorism and conflict abroad.

If anything, there has been the whispering whether Former Vice-President Al Gore would run. Let's face it: Mr. Gore recieved a bum deal in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled in the matter propelling Mr. Bush into office. Since then, the Vice-President had quietly retreated (much to the chagrin of some) and worked toward the cause of global warming. His participation in the film, An Inconvenient Truth(2006), brought him to the forefront once again. Especially on the talk show I had listened yesterday evening, there are still calls from some wishing that he would run. It showed that people do not forget what happened in 2000. And of course, some might even wonder whether we would be better off in America if he was President instead of the current one.

The nominees, in any stretch, must be chosen carefully. Whether it is Sen. John McCain (R.-Arizonia) or Rudolf Guilliani (R.-New York) or even Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, people have to realize that the person chosen must be able to work with foreign governments in a diplomatic and intelligent manner, to restore civility and politeness back to government, not to mention return professionalism and tact back to the White House.

As Americans, we cannot afford to have another politician in office who does not appreciate the gravity of their station as President of the United States. Furthermore, we need someone who works toward national security peacefully through smart negotiation and demonstration of knowledge regarding cultural sensitivity when dealing with international matters. What is most important is someone who can proactively work with building our domestic issues back so that United States citizens can benefit instead of suffer.

We'll just have to see how these early candidates pan out. And then, there will be definite picture which way the citizens of America want to go with their leadership.

Ready For A Little Trivia?

Bizarre as it is, I came across the line of (American)Presidential succession in an interesting book by Ben Schott called Schott's Original Miscellany (2002). Since this is always discussed in political circles, I thought it would be appropriate to post it here as a part of trivia. Read them and see what you think. Without further ado, here they are:

Presidential Succession:

Vice-President
Speaker of the House
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs

Schott, Ben. Schott's Original Miscellany. New York: Bloomsbury, 2002: 132.

Fascinating, to say the least.