Why dis or dish on ANY President?

Like most other mornings, I woke up and made myself a nice cup of coffee. Despite all attempts to follow my usual routine of coffee-news-blog-run to work; this was not like most mornings. I ran into what normally is coffee drinker's worst nightmare; no coffee filters. As a result, I had to resort to extreme measures to get my caffeine kick this morning. Non-the-less, I finally found a way, and can now start my day. More importantly, I finally have the necessary amounts of caffeine to answer a commonly asked question by liberals.

Like yesterday, I found another interesting piece by CNN blogger; Dean Obeidallah. The piece was called, "What's Behind Disssing the President?". His ultimate conclusion is that it is the agenda of right- wing media to undermine the legitimacy of the President by saying that he is "less American" and because of this, is less deserving of the role of President. In short, Mr. Obeidallah is accusing everyone on the right of being racist when that is certainly not the case. Granted, a small group of people on the right may be rascist, but when has is ever been o.k. to judge the many by the few? My argument is that this whole "phenomenon" of dissing the President is not something new.

Before I continue, I would like to make a few things perfectly clear to my readers. If you bothered to read my profile for this blog, you will see that I am currently enlisted in the United States Army. As a consequence, it would be... uncouth for me to outright disrespect the President, as he is my Commander- In- Cheif. However, just as I would criticize any other policy- maker for their policy making depictions and statements made to the public; this is where my critiquing begins and ends. I do believe in his legitimacy in his role as our nation's President and I do not believe that race, religion, ect should play a part in questioning his legitimacy as a leader. So, if you're looking to read about another political writer (another political writer, I mean ME) to disrespect the President; don't waste your time because you wont find that noise here.

Let's turn back the hands of time to let's say... 2001. President Bush takes his seat in the Oval Office and the nation's Left are up in arms. Before the Bush had even made one decision, critiques were already saying that he did not belong there despite a Supreme Court Case (Bush v. Gore) and a vote recount. As time moved forward, the President's approval rating fell further and further and people began to dis him more and more. By some miracle of G-d, Bush came into a second term which ended a little over 4 years ago.

Granted, people on the left and right hated him for a variety of reasons. But the left painted Bush to look something similar to that of the Anti- Christ. I believe this is because of who is in power. If a Republican is in power, the left will attempt to make him look like the worst person imaginable. If a Democrat is in power, the right will do everything humanly possible to de- legitimize their role. This is just the nature of the beast, or in this case politics.

So, why does anyone bother to dis or dish on ANY President? Answer: It's because we live in America.

Here's a video of the famed Obama- Dis I am talking about.

Obama & The Economy: A Casualty of Consequence?

Today, over a cup of coffee I decided to look around CNN.com to catch up on my political news. I ended up coming across an article by Gov. Bobby Jindal entitled, "Obama's Message of Divide and Blame". According to most Northern Democrats, Mr. Jindal is usually pretty good at making himself look silly. However, as many of you should know, he actually has proven himself to be quite a leader in spite of adversity and chaos (ie, during the Katrina Crisis). As a result, I have enormous amount of respect for him.

Here, Mr. Jindal argues that in regards to the economy, President Obama still regards himself as a victim of consequence. Moreover, that America doesn't need someone who makes excuses. Rather, America needs a leader. I tend to agree.

Four years ago when President Obama first came into office, I agreed with many of his supporters that he did come into a very precarious situation. Our economy was down the drain; our military was engaged in two wars in the Middle East with no exit strategy in sight; and most Americans were desperately seeking some type of change from this abysmal situation. No one expected that President Obama's message of "change" was perhaps not what everyone wanted or expected.

Americans were expecting a leader who was going to whip everyone on the Hill into shape. Americans were expecting a military strategist who knew a smart way to exit the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan without increased damage to the region. Moreover, Americans were expecting a type of openness that would ultimately lead to an increased trust in our elected officials. Wow, were we in for a surprise.

Although, I know that the President did keep a majority of his promises regarding the military. He created exit strategies for our nations military to get out of the Middle East. At the same time, by not placing stable leadership in place before existing could lead to increased turmoil in the region. In addition, the Hill is more dysfunctional than ever. But most important is how the government has yet to gain the trust of the people.

So, although President Obama claims to be a casualty of consequence, Americans need to ask ourselves if Obama is what we still need? He has already been in office for four years, can America take a supposed leader who would rather claim to be a casualty rather than own up to his mistakes for another four years? Because I last I checked it was the American people who are the ones suffering from a hemeraging economy, forclosures, and uncertainty. Maybe these are the true casualties of consequence....

Facebook & Employment- How this Impacts the Average Jane and Joe

I apologize to everyone for my absence. Between work, class and adjusting to living in the fast paced world of our nation's Capitol, life has become a bit hectic. However I decided to take out some time this morning to write about a topic that has become especially troublesome to me.

According to a yahoo.com news story, employers are now asking prospective employees for their Facebook passwords. I know it sounds crazy (at least to me anyways). However Forbes seems to believe that employers have the right to know as much as they can about prospective employers. However, I am forced to ask... Do employers really have a Right to know Everything about prospective employees?

Some people argue that businesses have the right to not hire lunatics for a position and that even if they didn't have the password anyone can find out what they need to know about someone. However, for me this raises serious questions about privacy issues. For instance, most information on my own Facebook page is blocked to anyone who does not know me personally. This is because although I have no shame in my ethnic background, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation; I like the idea of controlling who knows about my personal life. In addition, with a Facebook password employers can also look through someone's private messages. So, where does it end? Will employers soon be able to look through someone's e-mail? Someone's health records? What about camera's in someone's bedroom?

In response, business owners who support this practice are suggest that if prospective employers don't like the practice, that they should find someplace else to work. Thats the nature of the free market, right? Something these businesses didn't consider was the people who could not afford to not take the job offer? What about the people who are forced to live on the edge because of the economic downturn? This effectively puts the average Jane or Joe at the whim of nosey businesses.

Is a "thank you" really enough?

     I haven't written for a while, and for that I am sorry. To be completely honest, I haven't had the inspiration to write. By that I mean, I couldn't find a good topic to write about.But I think I have a pretty good one for today.

     So, I was talking with a good friend of mine who is currently in his third year of law school (and shall be referred to as Brutus). Brutus said that veterans should not ask for government benefits and should only expect a pat on the shoulder and a thank you from ordinary citizens. I honestly couldn't believe that any red- blooded American would say something like that. As a result, I decided to think about this question: Is a "thank you" really enough?

     In the spirit of honesty, I will admit that although I am not a veteran, I am a soldier. So, when people try to shake my hand I take the thank you graciously and move on. In short, I can't say I belong to that < 1% of Americans who have gone overseas to the battlefield. So, for me, the thank you is a nice gesture. For others who have gone overseas however, it is not enough for a few simple reasons.

     1) The soldiers that do go overseas into war zones have to deal with so much that most people would not be willing to deal with. In exchange for their lives, pain and suffering; they maintain our freedom and sovereignty. IF these warriors do come home, they come home battered and beaten. Some are lucky enough to come home to loving families.However, many on the other hand are not so fortunate. In response, it is our national duty, as Americans to take care of these soldiers as best we can as a society. 

     2) Soldiers are an expensive asset to the United States government. To send us to Basic Combat Training Alone costs the US government over $70,000 per soldier (this is NOT HOW MUCH WE GET IN OUR PAY CHECKS, its what they spend on pay, training, travel, ect.), and after we leave training, we only get more expensive. As a result, its only within the economic interests of the government to upkeep such an expensive asset.

     So, is a "thank you" really enough? For me, sure; for actual veterans.... absolutely not.

Five Reasons Why I Love Serving in the U. S. Army

So, it is the end of another day at work at my civilian job. I love my job and it is really rewarding (I work at a political consulting firm). But there is absolutely nothing like serving in the armed forces. And even though it is incredibly frustrating at times, if I had to do it all over again, I would in a heart beat for the following five reasons.
1) Family : The level of commitment to each other simply because we all serving under one flag and for one purpose (that is, to protect the Constitution of the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic). No matter what, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt if I needed anything, they have my back, as I will always have theirs no matter what. And although we do not always get along (just as in any other family) we love each other all the same; and there is nothing that can change that. So whether someone is in the Marines, Army, Navy or Air Force; we are all a part of one family.
2) Purpose: The military was formed for one purpose and for one purpose alone; to protect the people of the United States from those who wish nothing more than to see our destruction. So, as I see it, to serve such a purpose is nothing but the highest honor. It is our responsibility as soldiers to protect the public, not even just on the battlefield, but in the civilian world as well, which is no easy task. To know that people are going to look to you if something terrifying were to happen for safety and guidance is a responsibility of the uniform (one that I am very proud to have).
3) The Training: O. K..... I am going to admit, that training was no picnic, and that at some point, I thought I wasn't going to make it. However, I wouldn't be the same person without it. I learned so many valuable skills that it is amazing. I not only learned to work in a team environment, but I also learned how to lead a team in difficult circumstances. In addition, I also learned a skill that not many people are taught; how to be a good follower. Now, this doesn't mean to follow blindly, but to simply take direction. I learned how to work under pressure and to push myself further than I thought I was ever able to push myself.
4) The Stories: I know this isn't a serious reason to enlist, but sometimes when I think about some of the fun times had with my soldiers, I cannot help but smile. I don't want to go into too many details, but for those of you who are in the military; you guys already know....
5) The Uniform: I love the uniform itself. Seriously, I love wearing it. And again it is an honor. I love the military look and I love looking like a tough guy, even though I know I am barely five feet tall. It is awesome. People automatically look up to you and want to be you. In short, it gives you a real sense of pride that this uniform signifies.
With that said, I just want to say happy veteran's day to all of our military personnel; to everyone who signed that dotted line and gave away our first Amendment rights in order to protect those rights for those who we have sworn to protect.

The 89%

     According to a recent New York Times article a new study reveals that 89 percent of Americans say they distrust government to do the right thing, but 74 percent say the country is on the wrong track and 84 percent disapprove of Congress — warnings for Democrats and Republicans alike. A remarkable sense of pessimism and skepticism was apparent in question after question in the survey, which found that Congressional approval has reached a new low at 9 percent. The disapproval toward Congress has risen 22 percentage points since the beginning of the year when Republicans took control of the House.
      Part of the source of discontent is most likely the way in which Congressmen handled the debt crisis this summer. Americans painfully watched as politicians refused to discuss with each other what would be the best course of action for the nation. Instead, it turned into a screaming match between children. On top of that, rather than the President actually taking charge and driving policy, like a helpless parent, he pleaded for the Congress to grow up, and to make up their minds. It soon became all to clear to Americans that the politicians were not thinking about the bigger picture. Rather, they seemed to only think about party interests. No wonder why citizens are slow to trust a government, which served to fail them.
      Another problem that government makes for itself is voter disenfranchisement. By creating more rules and regulations for voters, it is effectively creating more barriers to participation. As a result, voters are thinking that perhaps government does not want their say, perhaps they do not care about our concerns.Which is too often the case.
      In addition, Republican voters remain UN-enthused about the options to challenge President Obama next year. The uncertainty has provided an opening for Herman Cain, who was viewed more enthusiastically by Republican primary voters than were other Republican candidates. Other than his 9-9-9 plan, the other Republican candidates have not attacked him for any thing else.
      The phenomenon that is Herman Cain continues to persist is because of two reasons; the Republicans are running out of time and they are quickly running out of options. So, despite several sexual harassment allegations and Islamaphopic sentiments, the Republican Party is giving him a longer grace period than normally expected in order for him to get his ducks in a row. And regardless of how much Mr. Romney attempts to help the rest of the party, they don't want him in because he doesn't reflect the ideals of the rest of the party.
      The question then becomes; what can be done about this? Well, people simply just need to participate. But more importantly, people need to stay informed of the facts. Participation can mean many things like; going out to vote, joining a political organization, or writing a blog. Other forms of civic participation can include participating in community organizations and volunteer service. Without actually taking the time for civic engagement, one would only expect for a government to run a- muck.

     
     

    


   

Herman Cain & Racism

     Not long ago, presidential candidate Herman Cain said that Muslims should be required to take a "loyalty test". With Herman Cain being currently the only viable Republican presidential candidate to go up against President Obama; this can be problematic for more reasons than one.
     Mr. Cain stated his views about the Muslim population in America at the height of  Islamaphobia; which is understandable for a Republican politician. That is, is a typical of a Republican politician to actively speak out against a deviant minority. By deviant, I am saying that not only is this group (generally speaking) politically weak, but they are also considered to be a dangerous group. Examples of deviant groups include (but are certainly not limited to): terrorists, criminals. In this case, Cain (as well as many other politicians) stupidly combined Muslims into this group.
     I use the term "stupidly" to describe his commentary on the Muslim population for a few reasons. First, because like all other fads, scape goat fads (like Islamaphobia) also fades. That is, every few years there is a new minority that enters the category of deviant; the Chinese, Jews and the Irish to name a few. Especially in the case of the Jewish population, as a group, they are quick to be weary of this type of behavior because it can be said that this type of rhetoric is similar to that of Nazi rhetoric right before the Nazi Party came into power in Germany. As a result, it alienates a lot of people (most of which will be imperative to win over in order to win the election.
     Cain himself was eventually forced to acknowledge the lack of longevity when it comes to this fad. As a result, he made a public apology  earlier during his presidential campaign. However, I would not assume that he was sincere about his apology. Rather, he was simply trying to cover his own arse, so that he wouldn't look like another racist Republican candidate.
     So when bloggers and political pundits claim that Herman Cain is a racist for what he has said about black people deserving to be poor because they do not work hard; I would argue that he is not racist against black people. Instead I propose two ideas. First, he is only expressing disgust at the idea that black people have been historically disenfranchised both politically and economically. This thought could also be interpreted so that what he meant is that in these times, it is more than possible for blacks in America to move past the disenfranchisement of the past by utilizing the remedies the system has provided for all blacks in America. In addition, I propose that Mr. Cain suffers from a case of Islamaphobia.