Let’s hope that Obama’s release of the “long version” of his actual birth certificate puts an end to the drama about Obama’s right to hold the office of President.
The Responsible Community never thought for a moment that Obama wasn’t a naturally born citizen. The campaign released documents that supported it. But more than that, someone in the adversarial environment that is part of politics in this country would have found evidence that he wasn’t if it existed. The Republican Governor of Hawaii would have been a national hero in many people’s minds if he would have presented the evidence. But, he didn’t. The financial resources of many individuals, including the Koch brothers, would have purchased such evidence at almost any cost if there was any. But, there wasn’t. Fox News, the most powerful conservative media outlet in the country would have secured a strong position in the market if they could have found any. But, they didn’t.
So, now, let’s move on to the heart of the issue.
Any candidate that is running for the office of the President of the United States should have to deliver proof that he is legally able to hold the office. After all, the Constitution does clearly state that he should be a naturally born citizen of the country. It is not out of the realm of the Congress’ roll to require that candidates present the necessary documents. But, anyone that is running for any office in the United States should also have to prove their eligibility.
You don’t have to be a “birther” to believe that one should have to prove their eligibility to hold office. Let’s make it across the board and be done with the issue.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Don't exclude a voice
It is a curious thing when one side or the other say that they are adamantly opposed to something, then turn around and use the issue to support their action. It doesn’t matter if it is the left, the right or what seems to be the lonesome middle, everyone does it.
In the book, “The Nine”, Jeffery Toobin documents such an incident. The book is about one of the longest reins of a single group of Supreme Court Justices in history. It covers the years from the late 70’s to the 90’s. On July 1, 1991, George H. W. Bush announces from the summer White House in Kennebunkport, Maine that he is nominating Clearance Thomas to the Supreme Court. Thomas is to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to set on the court. Yet, in the announcement, Bush claims that the fact that Thomas, “is a black and a minority has nothing to do with this” nomination.
Many years later the country would debate if nominees had enough experience as a judge, it any at all, to be a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, Thomas had served as a judge for only a year. Again, many justice nominations later, the country would debate that if it was important for nominees to have experience as an appeals judge. Again, Thomas never served on any appeals court nor argued a single case in front of an appeals court. The country would debate the value of a justice that has not been published – as in writing a book, an article or a legal brief of any magnitude. Yet, Thomas did none of those things and was nominated for the court.
It also caused a bit of trouble in another way that made many Republicans uncomfortable at the time, and may still. Thomas and other stalwart members of the Grand Old Party didn’t believe in preferential treatment because of race. Yet, this nominee and soon to become justice, was selected for nomination because of the color of his skin.
The truth is, in politics we make these same choices every day. If the intention is to exclude a race because the group is unqualified in its entirety, then it is an act of evil. It is a decision that has no basis in fact nor has any virtue at all.
But, if someone was selected, in part, as a sincere attempt to broaden the voices of opinion then it is a sound and valuable process. Regardless if we want to admit it, all races bring a different perspective to any opinion. The various lives that all Americans live may lead us to a common opinion. But, the many paths that were followed may provide a road map for the great diversity of individuals. To not consider the background and the race of an individual given the same ideologies is to deny the wisdom that comes from this American Experience.
Politics and the resulting community that comes from it is not an exact science. It is not like math that always gives the same result for the same variants. Community is a social science. Most of the time we are not making black and white decisions. (Perhaps a curious choice of words given the discussion.) Community deals in shades of grey. A discipline more akin to soft logic then the cold realities of 2 plus 2 equals four.
While there are absolutes that are common to all, communities survive because we consider all of the voices, not because we deny any one of the voices.
-----
In the book, “The Nine”, Jeffery Toobin documents such an incident. The book is about one of the longest reins of a single group of Supreme Court Justices in history. It covers the years from the late 70’s to the 90’s. On July 1, 1991, George H. W. Bush announces from the summer White House in Kennebunkport, Maine that he is nominating Clearance Thomas to the Supreme Court. Thomas is to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to set on the court. Yet, in the announcement, Bush claims that the fact that Thomas, “is a black and a minority has nothing to do with this” nomination.
Many years later the country would debate if nominees had enough experience as a judge, it any at all, to be a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, Thomas had served as a judge for only a year. Again, many justice nominations later, the country would debate that if it was important for nominees to have experience as an appeals judge. Again, Thomas never served on any appeals court nor argued a single case in front of an appeals court. The country would debate the value of a justice that has not been published – as in writing a book, an article or a legal brief of any magnitude. Yet, Thomas did none of those things and was nominated for the court.
It also caused a bit of trouble in another way that made many Republicans uncomfortable at the time, and may still. Thomas and other stalwart members of the Grand Old Party didn’t believe in preferential treatment because of race. Yet, this nominee and soon to become justice, was selected for nomination because of the color of his skin.
The truth is, in politics we make these same choices every day. If the intention is to exclude a race because the group is unqualified in its entirety, then it is an act of evil. It is a decision that has no basis in fact nor has any virtue at all.
But, if someone was selected, in part, as a sincere attempt to broaden the voices of opinion then it is a sound and valuable process. Regardless if we want to admit it, all races bring a different perspective to any opinion. The various lives that all Americans live may lead us to a common opinion. But, the many paths that were followed may provide a road map for the great diversity of individuals. To not consider the background and the race of an individual given the same ideologies is to deny the wisdom that comes from this American Experience.
Politics and the resulting community that comes from it is not an exact science. It is not like math that always gives the same result for the same variants. Community is a social science. Most of the time we are not making black and white decisions. (Perhaps a curious choice of words given the discussion.) Community deals in shades of grey. A discipline more akin to soft logic then the cold realities of 2 plus 2 equals four.
While there are absolutes that are common to all, communities survive because we consider all of the voices, not because we deny any one of the voices.
-----
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Home prices are at their lowest in years, so are property taxes
Home prices in Michigan are the lowest they have been since 1994. Local property taxes that are collected based on the value of the property are, of course, at their lowest in many years. The rise and now the fall of property taxes have placed many local budgets in a crisis. That is why there should be no property taxes based on the value of the structure for individuals or for businesses.
As an example, in Wisconsin, they are running into trouble on the taxes placed on property based on the value. In 2008, a Wisconsin state law allowed local communities to place a limit on the type of challenges that individuals and businesses can make on their property taxes. Local communities were allowed to limit the challenges to the local Board of Review only. But, a large rental property owner sued to have a court review its assessment. The state’s supreme court recently rightfully ruled that individuals and businesses have a right to challenge the tax assessment beyond the local board of review, in support of due process. This means that communities in Wisconsin and around the country are going to have difficulty preparing budgets because there will be challenges to the revenue stream.
Property taxes are one of the most arbitrary taxes we pay. The amount of the tax is based solely on what a local Board of Review thinks the property is worth. The value of any property can’t truly be determined unless it is sold or is used to generate income. But even after a sale, the value of the property may change dramatically from year to year based on issues that are market driven and out of the control of the property holder.
Additionally, those that pay the highest property taxes; homes with high value, homes that have been improved or property that generates income; are those that help the community maintain the overall property values of the community the most. To tax them more, based on arbitrary values, is counter productive.
Communities need stable revenue sources to provided needed services. Even the most minimum of services, like police and fire, will have a consistent cost from year to year, rising with inflation and other factors. Over the last few decades, property values have increased enough to provide communities with a growing revenue source that kept ahead of inflation. But in the past couple of years, that has all changed. Property values are now falling, forcing down the amount of tax revenue received.
Local communities need to base the taxes collected for local services based on another idea. The way to approach this might be on “unit” collection. All property would be valued not on market value, but on size and type of property. All vacant property would have one tax based on the size of the property. Residential housing would have another value based on the size of the lot and the square footage of the structure. The larger the structure, the more tax. Commercial, retail and industrial would have the same concept perhaps just different numbers and taxes.
Details do need to be worked out. But, a stable revenue source for communities would mean that services won’t be cut just because revenues are down. Property owners in a community would also know from year to year what their obligation will be. If the value of their property rises, they will not suffer because of it. Finally, an improvement in the individual housing or business unit property wouldn’t mean that there will be an increase in taxes.
-----
As an example, in Wisconsin, they are running into trouble on the taxes placed on property based on the value. In 2008, a Wisconsin state law allowed local communities to place a limit on the type of challenges that individuals and businesses can make on their property taxes. Local communities were allowed to limit the challenges to the local Board of Review only. But, a large rental property owner sued to have a court review its assessment. The state’s supreme court recently rightfully ruled that individuals and businesses have a right to challenge the tax assessment beyond the local board of review, in support of due process. This means that communities in Wisconsin and around the country are going to have difficulty preparing budgets because there will be challenges to the revenue stream.
Property taxes are one of the most arbitrary taxes we pay. The amount of the tax is based solely on what a local Board of Review thinks the property is worth. The value of any property can’t truly be determined unless it is sold or is used to generate income. But even after a sale, the value of the property may change dramatically from year to year based on issues that are market driven and out of the control of the property holder.
Additionally, those that pay the highest property taxes; homes with high value, homes that have been improved or property that generates income; are those that help the community maintain the overall property values of the community the most. To tax them more, based on arbitrary values, is counter productive.
Communities need stable revenue sources to provided needed services. Even the most minimum of services, like police and fire, will have a consistent cost from year to year, rising with inflation and other factors. Over the last few decades, property values have increased enough to provide communities with a growing revenue source that kept ahead of inflation. But in the past couple of years, that has all changed. Property values are now falling, forcing down the amount of tax revenue received.
Local communities need to base the taxes collected for local services based on another idea. The way to approach this might be on “unit” collection. All property would be valued not on market value, but on size and type of property. All vacant property would have one tax based on the size of the property. Residential housing would have another value based on the size of the lot and the square footage of the structure. The larger the structure, the more tax. Commercial, retail and industrial would have the same concept perhaps just different numbers and taxes.
Details do need to be worked out. But, a stable revenue source for communities would mean that services won’t be cut just because revenues are down. Property owners in a community would also know from year to year what their obligation will be. If the value of their property rises, they will not suffer because of it. Finally, an improvement in the individual housing or business unit property wouldn’t mean that there will be an increase in taxes.
-----
Thursday, March 24, 2011
An arguement for small communities
People have, as it is said, voted with their feet when they left the City of Detroit for other places. The other places are both to the northern suburbs and other states.
Yesterday, the United States Census data was released for the City of Detroit and surrounding areas. It shows that the population for the city is as low as it was a hundred years ago, down to just over 714,000. The counties of Macomb and Oakland showed small increases. The increases were not enough to keep the state of Michigan from losing population also. It was the only state that lost in the last ten years.
Dave Bing, the mayor of Detroit, has said that he will fight the numbers. He claims that the city was under counted by about 40,000 people. If the mayor can raise the count to over 750,000 it will enable the city to keep more state and federal dollars rolling in than at the lower number. But, none of the reasons he provided for the under count sounded very positive. The truth is, your honor, Detroit is suffering just like the rest of the region.
Detroit and most of the surrounding cities like much of Michigan will have to make do with less. Less people, less tax dollars and less sales for the businesses that employ the residents. With a lower population, revenue sharing from the state and federal government will not be as great. Yes, most revenue is shared on a population basis so there will be a cut. But, less people will also mean less representation in both the state and federal governments. States that have more representation will now demand a bigger share of the dollars.
But, there is something else going on that most don’t know about. It is the Headlee Amendment. With property values falling like they have because of foreclosures and people leaving the state (creating less demand) taxes generated from the property are also falling. Cities are having to work with budgets that are far less than they were just a few years ago. Services are being cut, personnel are being laid off and the security of communities is being affected. Many people are assuming that when property values start to grow again, so will tax revenues. But, the Headlee Amendment only allows a small increase in property tax revenues each year. Local governments now need to examine every means possible to make up for the loss of revenue over the long haul. They could ask for a Headlee override, but that is not likely in the short run.
Another way is begin consolidating services with other communities or create regional consortiums to provide base services. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in his government restructuring drive, is planning on asking the legislator to reduce revenue sharing to communities that don’t consolidate services with other communities.
Tight knit, well run communities may not want to consolidate with neighboring communities. The communities that they may need to consider consolidating services with may not be very well run. They also may have other problems like high unemployment or crime that wouldn’t make it a good fit.
But, let’s move back to the opening of this post. Detroit is losing population because people don’t like the way the city is run, they can’t make a good enough living, because crime is bad, or, for a long list of other reasons. If a community creates a large, intertwined system of services with other communities, people will not be able to just move across the street to avoid the problems in one community. They will have to either stay put and suffer or move much farther away, like out of state. Neither would benefit the local communities or the state.
With few exceptions, many small players is always better than a few large players. This is true in business and government. In business, many small players means no one business can dominate the market, if one fails there are plenty more and competition is much greater. Government works the same way. If people live in a region with many small communities, if one community turns bad, they can leave and go to another. But, if there is a large, regional consortium that is managing the entire region, there is nowhere to go except far away.
If the latest Census has taught us anything it is that people will vote with their feet. If we move to consolidating many of the small communities that we have now, we run the risk of people leaving the state.
Let’s not go there so people will stay here.
-----
Yesterday, the United States Census data was released for the City of Detroit and surrounding areas. It shows that the population for the city is as low as it was a hundred years ago, down to just over 714,000. The counties of Macomb and Oakland showed small increases. The increases were not enough to keep the state of Michigan from losing population also. It was the only state that lost in the last ten years.
Dave Bing, the mayor of Detroit, has said that he will fight the numbers. He claims that the city was under counted by about 40,000 people. If the mayor can raise the count to over 750,000 it will enable the city to keep more state and federal dollars rolling in than at the lower number. But, none of the reasons he provided for the under count sounded very positive. The truth is, your honor, Detroit is suffering just like the rest of the region.
Detroit and most of the surrounding cities like much of Michigan will have to make do with less. Less people, less tax dollars and less sales for the businesses that employ the residents. With a lower population, revenue sharing from the state and federal government will not be as great. Yes, most revenue is shared on a population basis so there will be a cut. But, less people will also mean less representation in both the state and federal governments. States that have more representation will now demand a bigger share of the dollars.
But, there is something else going on that most don’t know about. It is the Headlee Amendment. With property values falling like they have because of foreclosures and people leaving the state (creating less demand) taxes generated from the property are also falling. Cities are having to work with budgets that are far less than they were just a few years ago. Services are being cut, personnel are being laid off and the security of communities is being affected. Many people are assuming that when property values start to grow again, so will tax revenues. But, the Headlee Amendment only allows a small increase in property tax revenues each year. Local governments now need to examine every means possible to make up for the loss of revenue over the long haul. They could ask for a Headlee override, but that is not likely in the short run.
Another way is begin consolidating services with other communities or create regional consortiums to provide base services. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in his government restructuring drive, is planning on asking the legislator to reduce revenue sharing to communities that don’t consolidate services with other communities.
Tight knit, well run communities may not want to consolidate with neighboring communities. The communities that they may need to consider consolidating services with may not be very well run. They also may have other problems like high unemployment or crime that wouldn’t make it a good fit.
But, let’s move back to the opening of this post. Detroit is losing population because people don’t like the way the city is run, they can’t make a good enough living, because crime is bad, or, for a long list of other reasons. If a community creates a large, intertwined system of services with other communities, people will not be able to just move across the street to avoid the problems in one community. They will have to either stay put and suffer or move much farther away, like out of state. Neither would benefit the local communities or the state.
With few exceptions, many small players is always better than a few large players. This is true in business and government. In business, many small players means no one business can dominate the market, if one fails there are plenty more and competition is much greater. Government works the same way. If people live in a region with many small communities, if one community turns bad, they can leave and go to another. But, if there is a large, regional consortium that is managing the entire region, there is nowhere to go except far away.
If the latest Census has taught us anything it is that people will vote with their feet. If we move to consolidating many of the small communities that we have now, we run the risk of people leaving the state.
Let’s not go there so people will stay here.
-----
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Where is the outrage over Sharia Law?
Where is the outrage against this blood payment?
The United States is part of a Sharia law blood money payment to win the freedom of a CIA contractor and American citizen in Pakistan. Yet, there is no strong reaction in this country about using a Sharia law to win the release of the contractor.
Raymond Davis, a contractor working for the CIA, was released from Pakistani prison in Lahore a few weeks ago. He spent two months in detention awaiting trial on a charge of murder. On January 27, 2011, he killed two Pakistani men that he says were trying to rob him and were brandishing a weapon.
The two families of the men that were killed agreed to forgive Davis for the murders in open court. It was confirmed by an official of the United States that “blood money” had been paid to the families of about $2 million. Under Sharia law, a bribe by any other name, can be paid to the grieving families in return for their forgiveness of the crime. Since Pakistan operates its courts in conformity to Sharia Law, the judge released Davis. He was flown out of the country by the United States ambassador to Pakistan.
So where is the outrage?
Sharia law is a system of laws based on the religious beliefs of Muslims. It is doesn’t recognize the natural rights of humans. For this reason, many in this country, including the Responsible Community, don’t believe our courts should consider it in decisions. In Oklahoma, a citizen’s initiative to prevent it was passed overwhelmingly in the last national election. In many states around the country, most recently in Tennessee, legislation has been introduced that would ban the use of Sharia Law in decisions. (As a nation, we should ban the code of law of all religions from being considered in any decisions. We should only use Constitutional law.) Yet, when the United States wins the freedom of one of our own citizens by using Sharia law, there is no outrage.
The government in Pakistan is in some ways similar to our own system, with one exception. There is an executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. All legitimately elected to office directly or indirectly by a vote of the people. The exception is the Federal Shariat Court. In Pakistan’s constitution, this court decides if any law or ruling conforms with Sharia law. This court makes Pakistan’s government a theocracy, a form of government that doesn’t respect the rights of those that live outside of the religion of the land.
It is doubtful that Davis would have received a fair trial. The evidence presented would be questionable at best and any ruling would need to receive a confirmation from the Federal Shariat Court. Additionally, a long drawn out trial would have done serious damage to United States’ image in Pakistan and possibly to its foreign relations throughout the region. But, when we entered the country in this world wide war on terror, we knew that those risks existed.
Everyone involved in this case from the United States government is denying that the payment was “blood money” or that the United States government authorized it. It was used, it is suspected, as a simple, practical way to get Davis released and bring him home. It is fortunate that he is on his way home because of the doubts with Pakistani’s legal system, but our diplomats should have found another way to get him released. But, the truth is, we used a legal code that we condemn in this country yet use it to subvert the justice system in another country.
Right and wrong doesn’t end at our border. The calls for blocking Sharia law from being used in this country must be consistently applied throughout the world. The payment of “Blood Money” as it is understood in Sharia Law should not have been used to gain Davis’ release. How is it that we will be able to ever again condemn Sharia Law when we used it to our benefit in this case?
-----
The United States is part of a Sharia law blood money payment to win the freedom of a CIA contractor and American citizen in Pakistan. Yet, there is no strong reaction in this country about using a Sharia law to win the release of the contractor.
Raymond Davis, a contractor working for the CIA, was released from Pakistani prison in Lahore a few weeks ago. He spent two months in detention awaiting trial on a charge of murder. On January 27, 2011, he killed two Pakistani men that he says were trying to rob him and were brandishing a weapon.
The two families of the men that were killed agreed to forgive Davis for the murders in open court. It was confirmed by an official of the United States that “blood money” had been paid to the families of about $2 million. Under Sharia law, a bribe by any other name, can be paid to the grieving families in return for their forgiveness of the crime. Since Pakistan operates its courts in conformity to Sharia Law, the judge released Davis. He was flown out of the country by the United States ambassador to Pakistan.
So where is the outrage?
Sharia law is a system of laws based on the religious beliefs of Muslims. It is doesn’t recognize the natural rights of humans. For this reason, many in this country, including the Responsible Community, don’t believe our courts should consider it in decisions. In Oklahoma, a citizen’s initiative to prevent it was passed overwhelmingly in the last national election. In many states around the country, most recently in Tennessee, legislation has been introduced that would ban the use of Sharia Law in decisions. (As a nation, we should ban the code of law of all religions from being considered in any decisions. We should only use Constitutional law.) Yet, when the United States wins the freedom of one of our own citizens by using Sharia law, there is no outrage.
The government in Pakistan is in some ways similar to our own system, with one exception. There is an executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. All legitimately elected to office directly or indirectly by a vote of the people. The exception is the Federal Shariat Court. In Pakistan’s constitution, this court decides if any law or ruling conforms with Sharia law. This court makes Pakistan’s government a theocracy, a form of government that doesn’t respect the rights of those that live outside of the religion of the land.
It is doubtful that Davis would have received a fair trial. The evidence presented would be questionable at best and any ruling would need to receive a confirmation from the Federal Shariat Court. Additionally, a long drawn out trial would have done serious damage to United States’ image in Pakistan and possibly to its foreign relations throughout the region. But, when we entered the country in this world wide war on terror, we knew that those risks existed.
Everyone involved in this case from the United States government is denying that the payment was “blood money” or that the United States government authorized it. It was used, it is suspected, as a simple, practical way to get Davis released and bring him home. It is fortunate that he is on his way home because of the doubts with Pakistani’s legal system, but our diplomats should have found another way to get him released. But, the truth is, we used a legal code that we condemn in this country yet use it to subvert the justice system in another country.
Right and wrong doesn’t end at our border. The calls for blocking Sharia law from being used in this country must be consistently applied throughout the world. The payment of “Blood Money” as it is understood in Sharia Law should not have been used to gain Davis’ release. How is it that we will be able to ever again condemn Sharia Law when we used it to our benefit in this case?
-----
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Comments on events around the community
Comments from around the community:
From Politico.org: Newt Gingrich tweaked President Barack Obama Friday for taking time to fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket when he could have been working on the Libyan crisis.
“If they want to, they can get rid of Qadhafi,” he said. “The president announced on March 3rd that Qadhafi has got to go. This is the opposite of Eisenhower or Reagan.”
Obama’s position on Libya “makes us look weak and uncertain and increases the danger in the Persian Gulf,” he said.
Responsible Community’s Comment: And, Mr. Gingrich, who should we replace him with, someone from the rebels that are fighting him? Reagan drove the Russians out of Afghanistan by helping the rebels that was lead by some guy named bin Laden. Now look what we have on the world stage. It isn’t so certain that the rebels would be better than the status quo.
Besides, Mr. Gingrich, should we be involved on a third front in this War on Terror?
From Reuters: Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin's anti-union law. A complaint filed by Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and County Board Chair Scott McDonell, alleges that the anti-union measure contained fiscal items that required a quorum in the Senate.
Responsible Community's Comment: It was clearly wrong that the Democrats left the state to hold up the vote on the legislation. It was nothing more than a filibuster by any other name and The Responsible Community doesn’t think they are right. As wrong as the legislation is a filibuster only blocks the will of the people.
But, it was wrong for the Republicans to reduce themselves to using trickery to get the legislation past.
From The Oakland Press: Two former local Democratic party officials from Michigan face up to 14 years behind bars for allegedly forging paperwork to put fake Tea Party candidates on the November 2010 ballot.
Responsible Community’s Comment: This should receive the highest honor for the lowest act (and dumbest) in politics. This is the sort of thing that happens in third world countries and in Arizona. There, Republican officials created fake Green Party Canidates to pull from Democrats.
From the New York Daily News: Right-wing blowhard Ann Coulter took her incendiary views to a whole new level Thursday, this time finding the silver lining in Japan's nuclear disaster.
During a segment on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, the conservative firebrand tried to calm jittery viewers by telling them "radiation is good for you."
"So by your account, we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor" leaking radiation in Japan, joked a skeptical O'Reilly.
[O’Reilly continued,] "The prevailing wisdom is there's a level of radiation that's gonna hurt you and perhaps kill you ... What you say may be true - there may be some doses of radiation that in the human body can ward off infection. But in something like this, you gotta get the folks out of there, and you have to report worst-case scenarios."
O'Reilly pointed to the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof that radiation kills, but Coulter wouldn't budge.
Responsible Community's Comment: Well, I would like to purchase a one way ticket for Ann to help out with the work that is going on with the reactors in Japan. She can help get them up and running at the same time she is becoming disease free.
-----
From Politico.org: Newt Gingrich tweaked President Barack Obama Friday for taking time to fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket when he could have been working on the Libyan crisis.
“If they want to, they can get rid of Qadhafi,” he said. “The president announced on March 3rd that Qadhafi has got to go. This is the opposite of Eisenhower or Reagan.”
Obama’s position on Libya “makes us look weak and uncertain and increases the danger in the Persian Gulf,” he said.
Responsible Community’s Comment: And, Mr. Gingrich, who should we replace him with, someone from the rebels that are fighting him? Reagan drove the Russians out of Afghanistan by helping the rebels that was lead by some guy named bin Laden. Now look what we have on the world stage. It isn’t so certain that the rebels would be better than the status quo.
Besides, Mr. Gingrich, should we be involved on a third front in this War on Terror?
From Reuters: Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin's anti-union law. A complaint filed by Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and County Board Chair Scott McDonell, alleges that the anti-union measure contained fiscal items that required a quorum in the Senate.
Responsible Community's Comment: It was clearly wrong that the Democrats left the state to hold up the vote on the legislation. It was nothing more than a filibuster by any other name and The Responsible Community doesn’t think they are right. As wrong as the legislation is a filibuster only blocks the will of the people.
But, it was wrong for the Republicans to reduce themselves to using trickery to get the legislation past.
From The Oakland Press: Two former local Democratic party officials from Michigan face up to 14 years behind bars for allegedly forging paperwork to put fake Tea Party candidates on the November 2010 ballot.
Responsible Community’s Comment: This should receive the highest honor for the lowest act (and dumbest) in politics. This is the sort of thing that happens in third world countries and in Arizona. There, Republican officials created fake Green Party Canidates to pull from Democrats.
From the New York Daily News: Right-wing blowhard Ann Coulter took her incendiary views to a whole new level Thursday, this time finding the silver lining in Japan's nuclear disaster.
During a segment on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, the conservative firebrand tried to calm jittery viewers by telling them "radiation is good for you."
"So by your account, we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor" leaking radiation in Japan, joked a skeptical O'Reilly.
[O’Reilly continued,] "The prevailing wisdom is there's a level of radiation that's gonna hurt you and perhaps kill you ... What you say may be true - there may be some doses of radiation that in the human body can ward off infection. But in something like this, you gotta get the folks out of there, and you have to report worst-case scenarios."
O'Reilly pointed to the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof that radiation kills, but Coulter wouldn't budge.
Responsible Community's Comment: Well, I would like to purchase a one way ticket for Ann to help out with the work that is going on with the reactors in Japan. She can help get them up and running at the same time she is becoming disease free.
-----
Friday, March 18, 2011
American Exceptionalism
Clearly one of the most troubling issues during the Bush administration were the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay. Then, Senator Obama, while campaigning to replace Bush in the oval office, promised that he would close the prison one year from the time he took office. He signed an executive order to just that two days after he took office.
It has been more than two years and the prison is still open.
Now, President Obama has signed another executive order to keep 50 of the prisoners there without trial for an indefinite period of time. The same order initiates his own “military commissions” trials for the other detainees. This is creating a bill of attainder that is prohibited in the Constitution, or, just picking someone up and creating a law that allows the individual to be held.
Every administration since Clinton has said the “war on terror” is worldwide. The combatants are located in many countries around the world, including the United States. The battlefield, therefore, as defined by The Geneva Convention is not a tightly defined field but encompasses most of the globe. When people in this “war on terror” are captured the Geneva Convention Treaty has very detailed guidelines on how these prisoners of war should be treated. The United States signed the treaty. But, Obama, who promised to end this abuse of power, has now signaled that we will not follow the convention’s rules, but will only follow our own.
What is so troubling about this?
The United States expects every country in the world to follow these rules. If a United States citizen, civilian or military, are captured, the first thing we request is that they be treated fairly and by the rules. The executive order that Obama signed tosses the Geneva Convention rules out for the United States, just like previous administrations. The people that are being held in Guantanamo Bay are not classified as prisoners of war to avoid the convention’s rules and will not be classified as common criminals to avoid United States law. So, how is it we can expect others to follow the rules when we are not?
The answer is that as a culture, we often believe in American Exceptionalism. In its current use, it is the belief that we are better than other nations because of our belief systems, government, culture and history. The idea means that we can make our own rules at the same time that we expect others to follow different rules, rules of course, that we have agreed to but don’t follow.
Well, we are different. Our form of government is nearly perfect compared to most everything out there. Our belief in civil rights that are enumerated in the Constitution has made us a great country. If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, they have the right to due process. This means they can’t be held until we come up with something to charge them with. Or, if they are a prisoner of war, we have other rules that we agreed to follow.
But, our Exceptionalism shouldn’t provide us with an excuse to make our own rules, but rather that we follow them better than others. It is because we became great in our own right not because we were above everyone else, or in a phrase - above the law, but because we are a community of law.
Our Exceptionalism should compel us to follow the rules as an example, a shining beacon to the rest of the world. President Obama needs to resend his executive order and classify the detainees as prisoners of war or charge them with a crime where they can be tried in open court.
-----
It has been more than two years and the prison is still open.
Now, President Obama has signed another executive order to keep 50 of the prisoners there without trial for an indefinite period of time. The same order initiates his own “military commissions” trials for the other detainees. This is creating a bill of attainder that is prohibited in the Constitution, or, just picking someone up and creating a law that allows the individual to be held.
Every administration since Clinton has said the “war on terror” is worldwide. The combatants are located in many countries around the world, including the United States. The battlefield, therefore, as defined by The Geneva Convention is not a tightly defined field but encompasses most of the globe. When people in this “war on terror” are captured the Geneva Convention Treaty has very detailed guidelines on how these prisoners of war should be treated. The United States signed the treaty. But, Obama, who promised to end this abuse of power, has now signaled that we will not follow the convention’s rules, but will only follow our own.
What is so troubling about this?
The United States expects every country in the world to follow these rules. If a United States citizen, civilian or military, are captured, the first thing we request is that they be treated fairly and by the rules. The executive order that Obama signed tosses the Geneva Convention rules out for the United States, just like previous administrations. The people that are being held in Guantanamo Bay are not classified as prisoners of war to avoid the convention’s rules and will not be classified as common criminals to avoid United States law. So, how is it we can expect others to follow the rules when we are not?
The answer is that as a culture, we often believe in American Exceptionalism. In its current use, it is the belief that we are better than other nations because of our belief systems, government, culture and history. The idea means that we can make our own rules at the same time that we expect others to follow different rules, rules of course, that we have agreed to but don’t follow.
Well, we are different. Our form of government is nearly perfect compared to most everything out there. Our belief in civil rights that are enumerated in the Constitution has made us a great country. If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, they have the right to due process. This means they can’t be held until we come up with something to charge them with. Or, if they are a prisoner of war, we have other rules that we agreed to follow.
But, our Exceptionalism shouldn’t provide us with an excuse to make our own rules, but rather that we follow them better than others. It is because we became great in our own right not because we were above everyone else, or in a phrase - above the law, but because we are a community of law.
Our Exceptionalism should compel us to follow the rules as an example, a shining beacon to the rest of the world. President Obama needs to resend his executive order and classify the detainees as prisoners of war or charge them with a crime where they can be tried in open court.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)