A Plan Please

In my last post I blasted the Republicans for being unwilling to work with President Obama on the debt ceiling. I stand by my criticism of them. However, I would be remiss if I did not also point out the fact that the Republicans have at least presented a plan out to the public. First, it was the plan from Congressman Paul Ryan. Now they have recently passed a plan through the House of Representatives that requires a balanced budget. I may have issues with the plan but at least it is out there, which is more than what we are getting from our president.
Why have we not seen the Democrat plan? Are they not capable of putting together a plan to solve the debt ceiling crisis? Of course they are. The fact of the matter is that they do not want to put out a plan. Once you put out a plan then the opposing political party can attack the specifics of the plan. It is smart politics to let your political opponents produce a specific plan that you can attack while you stick with generalities. The Democrats are playing smart politics with this ploy.
But they are not contributing to solving our problem. Perhaps this is what is really wrong with us. It is not that our political system is creating our economic problems, although that might be the case, but it is that our political system does not provide incentives for us to solve those problems. Republicans want to keep the Tea Party people happy and thus take tax revenues completely off the table. Democrats want to keep their political advantage and so will not produce a workable plan. Both are playing politics instead of finding solutions.
And do you wonder why I refuse to be either a Republican or a Democrat?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Can we be adults about this?

Everyone agrees that we will have to raise our debt limit. But the Republicans want a deal with no increase in revenue but plenty of spending cuts. The Democrats want revenue increases and will do some spending cuts as long as Social Security is off the table. So we have had an impasse with neither side really serious about getting a deal.
But then recently President Obama showed that he is serious. He put Social Security on the table for debate. Now it has been up to the Republicans to put revenue increases on the table as well. It did not even have to be tax increases. It could have been the closing of the tax loopholes for revenue increases. Funny thing happen on the way to the compromised. The Republicans decided to play games instead of cutting a deal.
To be sure not all of the Democrats were willing to have Social Security on the table. Pelosi and a lot of the liberal Democrats were gearing up to fight Social Security cuts. But President Obama decided that trying to fix our budget was more important then trying to have a political issue. It is too bad the Republicans did not want to do the same.
For the Republicans stopping President Obama from enjoying political success was more important than solving our problems. It is similar to what the Democrats did to Bush. Obstructing the president of the opposite party seems to be an American tradition.
But the problem with that tradition is that in situations like this we as Americans can not come together to compromise and find solutions. Even as I praise President Obama in this current situation I can not forget that he voted against raising the debt ceiling when President Bush wanted it. We have to get past just trying to stop the other party and look at compromises that can solve the problems of our country. Is that too much for a troublemaker to ask?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Getting away with it - Part 2

No I did not plan on having a part 2 to my last blog. Then Anthony Wiener happened. Now what can this sorry episode add to my general point. I did not think he added much until I heard the hot dog say "I am taking full responsibility for my actions."
Really hot dog? Full responsibility would have been to come clean as soon as information started to come out. Full responsibility would have been not to blame conservative media for his trouble when he knew he was guilty. Full responsibility would not have dragged his wife though this mess by getting help when he saw he had a problem. The way hot dog handled this is anything but full responsibility.
Now why did not hot dog take full responsibility. The answer is simple. He thought he had a chance to get away with it. Put yourself in his position. You have seen politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have sex scandals and get away with it by blaming their political enemies. So you can either come clean and pay the consequences of your actions. Or you can use the tried and true method of shifting blame onto others and maybe get away with it. You know shifting blame may work because people from your party want to blame their political opponents and may overlook evidence that you are guilty. Come on and be honest. Which choice would you make?
Hot dog made his choice because he reasonably thought he had a chance to get away with it. What if he knew he would not get any support from his fellow Democrats for lying? That his they would be suspicious from the very beginning and would have demanded that he have an external investigation of his "hacked" account. He would have had an incentive to been honest in the first place. (By the way this is not an attack on the Democrats. I have no doubt that Republicans would have initially covered for their own in the same manner).
We live in a society where people do not always react with their better angels and so we need social sanctions that go beyond merely defending the interest of our social groups. Just like we need Democrats to not merely blame Republicans at their first opportunity, but to hold their own accountable, we need to be aggressive in challenging those in our own groups. I like to see a culture where we are driven more by larger principles of honest and fairness rather than tribal loyalty. Such tribal loyalty encourages members of our own group to use our prejudices and stereotypes so that they can engage in immoral deeds and then manipulate us to get away with it.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Getting away with it

Not a good year for the Govenator. Arnold step down as Governor of California with terrible ratings. And now he may lose his marriage because he decided to fool around with the help. Let me get this straight. The baby of the housekeeper was born about the same week as the baby of his wife. So at the same time he was impregnating his wife he was... well you get the picture. He clearly can not say that he was having an affair due to lack of sex by his wife. This guy had it all. A great career, beautiful wife and kids, money, fame. He still may have had some political career but that is gone now. His marriage appears to be toast which is going to effect his relationship with his kids. He will still have money but he may now be famous for things he does not want to be famous for. All for a little role in the hay. Why would he risk so much for what is really so little?
Then there is the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. You remember him. The IMF leader who is about 70 years old but has sexual urges so powerful that he had to go ahead and rape his maid. Wow. What a great decision that was. This guy was going to challenge for the presidency of France before he decided that rape was a better political move than say hiring a prostitute. Not that I am condoning prostitution but why did he not just do that? The French would have forgiven him for that. Instead he has lost his political career and maybe his freedom because he could not "control" his sexual impulses. As old as he is even a five year sentence may be a life sentence. So from a non-moral but practical standpoint what do you think is smarter - rape a maid or hire a prostitute?
Ever wonder why some men do dumb things. And men seem to do it a lot in the sexual realm. Anybody remember John Edwards threatening his presidential candidacy so that he could have an out of wedlock kid. All while his wife is fighting cancer. I do not want to just focus on men as I have seen women do dumb things and throw away great opportunities as well. Usually they do this trying to save a dumb guy that they "love" but they are being dumb nonetheless. But why people can be so short sighted is something that is worth thinking about. These cases of men trading in their families and careers for a sexual encounter is one of the best ways to show this tendency.
I have a theory about this. I think that Arnold, Dominique and John did their stuff because they thought they would get away with it. They were powerful men who thought that their power would shield them from the consequences of their actions. Those actions show what can happen when people think that there are no consequences for their actions. Murders kill because they think they can get away with it. Thiefs steal because they think they can get away with it. When you see the worst of human behavior you are seeing those who think they can get away with what they are doing.
Sociologist talk about social control in society. That is aspects of our society that compel us to behave. When there is no social control there is the potential of human horror and we see that all the time. Ever wonder what you would do if you could get away with it. What would you take? Who would you oppress? How would you punish those you hate? You may not want to think about that. Those can be an uncomfortable thoughts to have. But if we can truly engage in self-introspection then when we truly are in situations where we think we can get away with evil we may decide to restrain ourselves and live by our true principles. Just saying.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Will I help out?

Today I was taking some computers to be recycled. It was out in the country. On the way there I saw an older man in the middle of the road with an even older woman in a wheel chair. He looked a little lost and I did not know what to make of it. I continued on to the recyclers and dropped off my computer. On the way back I saw the couple again. I saw that they were trying to hitch a ride. At first I was thinking that there was not enough room for me to stop and get them and the chair in the car. But I realized that I could not leave them out there. So I stopped to pick them up.
A cop came up and examined the situation. He had received several calls from concerned drivers. After I got the couple and the chair in the car I took them a few miles to a relative. The man was the son and in his 50s. The woman was in her 80s. They had fallen on hard times and needed to stay at a relative for a few days. The mother also needed some medication that they were not able to get easily.
The episode made me wonder about helping each other out. Why did I not recognize they needed help the first time I drove past. Was it because I did not want to take the time to help or because it was not clear they needed help? Why did other people not help them during the time I was at the recyclers? Was it fear? We are not suppose to pick up hitchhikers but I could not see them as a threat. I think that a 6 foot 3 inch guy should not be scared of two small older adults. But I understand that other people may have some fear. Regardless it is tough for us to get involved in the lives of others even when it is to help them.
It would be easy to drive past people and not help them out. I do it often enough. I am glad I did not do it today but I am no angel. I hope today makes me more willing to stop and give a ride or help someone out when necessary.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Another take on Bin Ladin's death

Sometimes things are not what they seem to be. Smart people learn not to point such things out as it can aggravate other people. But I am not smart. I am a trouble-maker. So here I go.
As I read about the killing of Osama bin Laden it was clear that the soldiers were there to kill him and not capture him. The way I heard it was to shoot him unless there was no possibility he could engage in violence. Since he could have hidden explosives on himself the only way they could be sure that he would not engage in violence is if they caught him naked. hmmmm. That is an image I do not want to see. But I digress. This may have been a capture or kill assignment but it was much more on the kill than on the capture.
It did not have to be that way. When the U.S. went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), care was taken to capture him instead of killing him. It is possible to capture these terrorist. But President Obama did not focus on capturing Bin Laden. He gave orders that almost assured his death.
Now does this bother me. No. But here is what is interesting. Bush was president when KSM was captured. I believe Bush wanted him captured while Obama wanted Bin Laden killed. I believe that if Bush was president Bin Laden there would have been more of an emphasis on capturing him than killing him. Why?
Bush had no problems using what some call "enhanced interrogation" and other call torture on terrorist to gain information. A captured terrorist had value for Bush. That terrorist can provide information that Bush hoped to use against the terrorist's organization. A capture terrorist has no value for Obama. That means questions of trials and civil liberties come into play. Would we have tried Bin Laden in New York or at a military base. How do we get information from Bin Laden if we do not use enhanced interrogations. I believe that the Obama administration did not want to deal with those hot potato political questions. A Bin Laden with a bullet hole in the head is much better for Obama than a live one in a cell.
Here is the irony. In one way Obama has not been very progressive. He is definitely not a pacifist. He has emphasized killing terrorist with drone missiles rather than capturing them. Bush had no qualms about killing terrorist but he wanted to capture them more than killing them. If you are a terrorist your life expectancy is shorter under an Obama administration than a Bush one.
I am not picking sides in whether it is better to capture or to kill terrorist. Someone like Bin Laden or KSM has to be either capture or killed. We can not reason with such vermin. But our assumptions that the Democrat administration is softer on terrorist does not comport to reality. Political motivations to keep terrorist out of jails has ironically made Obama more bloodthirsty to terrorist than Bush. Go figure.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

We are all Americans now

The world is a better place now that Bin Laden is no longer in it. I am not a violent man. In fact at one point of my life I was a pacifist. But I shed no tear at the death of that terrorist. In fact I have a sense of justice in the way he died. Shot down in the middle of the night like a dog. The only regret I have is that an innocent woman was killed in the attack.
And I am glad that it was President Obama who gave the order. I have nothing against President Bush but there is something special about having Obama give the order to take out Bin Laden. So often Democrats are thought of not being very patriotic and not willing to fight for our country. President Obama showed that he is willing to take out an American enemy by force if necessary. It is a lesson that love of country is not confined to one political party over the other. In moments like this and right after September 11 we are all Americans and we can feel a unity of purpose that often escapes us.
That is one of the reasons why the celebrations did not bother me. Some were concerned about Americans celebrating the death of someone. I do not see it as much as a celebration of a killing as it is the affirmation of justice. A justice denied to us for ten years. I am not "happy" Bin Laden is dead. But it is what had to happen given what he was about. While I may not jump in the lake as some Ohio State students did in celebration, I see no reason to have a mournful attitude towards his death. His death or imprisonment was something that Americans have longed for and it has temporarily brought us together.
How long will the unity of this event last. Not long. I am not naive about that. We will be back to being polarized soon enough.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker