Defense

 Foreign policy has once again taken center stage in America and again the Democratic president has come under attack as too hesitant, not strong enough on defense. Happily some backtracking on the Republican side has already occurred, still the position is that he is not moving fast enough.
IMO, Obama has a strong record on defense and this old line has become more than stale. I also believe this in general is just another Republican delusion that has taken hold with the public through repetition.
Democrats have never been 'soft on defense' and this president most certainly is not. Just check your history:
A Democrat won WWI, a Democrat won WWII, Korea and Vietnam stymied Presidents from both parties, and more recently, it was a Republican who just plain tangled up our response to 9/11 and a Democrat who found and destroyed the instigator of that attack.
The myth of Democratic softness, as far as I can tell, originates from their more thoughtful and measured approach to the Defense Dept. If they were not for everything and anything military that could be imagined, they were accused. This is just hysteria and it seems the American people are finally realizing it.
If there is any good to be found in the GWB 'legacy' maybe this is it. He finally managed to overdo the hawkishness and drive Americans away from that immature state if mind.
As for me, at this point in time anyway, I have faith in Obama to do the right thing - just like he has before.

Rick feels the heat, sort of

So Rick Perry demands an apology from the Californian cartoonist who had the nerve to tell it like it is.
I'm sooooo sorry. One more chance for Good Hair to show us that he can be a man and admit his errors.
Guess he's still not up for it.
To be fair, West is not ALL his fault. Our previous governor, in his 'capacity' as 'president' did his best to prevent inspections of fertilizer plants, even after it was much publicized after 9/11 that they were vulnerable, not only to corporate malfeasance, like happened in West, but also terrorism. The Republican party is fine with attacking the FBI for not somehow knowing Tamerlan was guilty, even though they investigated and found nothing, but won't give a moments' thought to something as simple and undramatic as inspecting factories for safety.
And then there is the company itself. Even though it is shocking that inspections were not taking place, that did not force the company to engage in such risky behavior.
Perhaps before we contemplate barring students from entering the country merely because of where they happened to be born and raised, we could start by making sure we don't blow OURSELVES up.
As for Rick, maybe next time his horrendous performance as governor kills or injures his fellow Texans, he will find the decency to accept some reponsibility.

Asked and Answered

There are many things to talk about today, but I heard something on TV this morning that I had to respond to.
At the celebration of the George Bush Presidential Pseudo Library, the question was asked as a quiz: Who was the last person to defeat W in an election?
Of course, every good liberal knows the answer to that: Al Gore!
So I call on you today to commemorate this ridiculous occasion by musing on how much better our country would be, socially, financially, diplomatically and environmentally if that election had been decided correctly.
Maybe our combined energies will make something good happen.

What does it mean to you?

Earth day again. The 43rd. A lot to look back at.
There have certainly been victories: a lot of pollution has been cleaned up, the ozone hole is shrinking and should disappear, and renewable energy is beginning to take hold.
But new problems are appearing and we are on the brink of possibly creating a large new one that we could avoid.  Tar sands oil.
At this time when new forms of energy are beginning to take a larger share of the mix, should we really invest in some of the dirtiest petroleum possible?
Can we really not override those who refuse to move out of the 1950s?
Appropriately, this is the time for a lesson in interconnectedness. Corporate funding of elections instead of public funding, the partisan drawing of district lines, and a rather silly changing of the rules of the Senate, have all contributed to this problem.
These things are wrong and dangerous in many instances, but when it comes to the future of the earth itself, they are perfectly unacceptable.
Of course, the planet will go on, but in what state? Will it be a planet we want to live on? Is mere existence the standard we are shooting for?
The best way to honor this Earth Day is to decide not to lurch from disaster to disaster and get active for a few days or weeks at a time, but make a real commitment. Stand up for a different earth, a different future and be active in some way every day.

MHP/Public Education

After all the uproar, MHP took to the air to clarify that her promo was about the importance of public education.
So, let's talk about that.
I was recently at a meeting/lobby day with my state representative, discussing just this subject. Mostly I sat and listened to others speak, and as I did a position solidified in my mind.
I am a big supporter of public education. But, I do understand that parents with children in school now need a solution now. So I would support vouchers FOR THOSE WHO REALLY NEED THEM so their children can get a good education now. Proof of need should be required for public money to be spent on this.
Beyond that, I would think that everyone would agree that the priority should be making the public schools competitive with most, if not all, of the private schools. If that is done, the problem should go away.
I don't know about anywhere else, but I KNOW Texas needs MUCH more revenue to fix ALL the social problems in our state.
Good for business is not good enough.

Boston etc.

The event in Boston was truly shocking, but I am heartened by the response so far. Except for a few fringe types (A.J.), everyone has been surprisingly restrained, allowing the authorities to do their job and helping as much as possible.
A definite contrast to how the gun issue has been handled. Here we have two sides talking past each other, engaging in strong rhetoric and demonizing each other to a typical extent.
Perhaps I can see this as I am not strongly invested in this issue. Not that it isn't an important issue, but I have discovered you can really only put effort into so many things before you diminish your effectiveness everywhere.
So from my perspective, why not an all of the above approach, like Obama claims to be using with energy?
It seems to me that both sides have offered valuable partial solutions. Why not use them all? Armed guards in schools doesn't eliminate the need for background checks, or a ban on high capacity magazines the need for better mental health treatment (which, frankly, I don't think the NRA is pushing hard enough. If they had much sense, they would be talking about that nonstop.).Maybe some clever Congressperson could even link some of these ideas in a bill and see if both sides would support it. Or, if not, at least you could flush out the insincere.
Maybe this can be the issue where the polarization of our country begins to crumble.

MHP pt. 2

Further thoughts.
1. Of course, parents have rights which must be respected. For the most part, these are people who have chosen to give birth and commit to sacrifice to raise the child. Society does and should recognize this.
2. Children are people, not property. Therefore, Fox News, they don't 'belong' to anyone, except to society as members, not property.
3. As adults, these children will live in society, therefore, society has some rights to their teaching and socialization as well.
4.. These different facts must be reconciled. Society has not done the best job they could at this. Implicitly, we all know that parental rights are not absolute. People who abuse their child physically have those rights terminated. But we are squeamish about emotional and mental abuse. We need to get over that. It will take a long time and many cases to establish standards for these things, so we need to get started now.
This controversy may be a good place to start.

I'm with you Melissa

Melissa Harris-Perry has set off a firestorm with her simple suggestion that society has some role and some stake in the raising of children. I want to say I agree with her.
This seems to me to be an issue, like many others, that society has deliberately avoided for too long.
At one level, we all know that parental rights are not absolute. Face it, some parents are just not good parents. Society does not accept their right to abuse their children.
The real question is where do we draw the line? What rights DO parents have? What rights do children have? What rights does society, where these children will live after they are grown, have?
Do Klan members have the right to isolate their children in their communities, making sure their hateful rhetoric is all they will hear as they are growing?
The fact is, children are humans and IMO, should have defined rights and we should all know what they are.
They should not infringe on good parenting and good parents should not object to this.
This might be a good time to start thinking about these issues.
Thanks, Melissa