Interim President of the NAACP, Lorraine Miller, provided the obvious title for today's column because it applied across all the subjects discussed on today's Meet The Press. In making the statement, Ms. Miller was commenting to the racist comments allegedly Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling to his girlfriend. And if it is in fact Donald Sterling's voice on the damaging tape then the NBA should take action to remove him as an owner of a franchise, which would require the other owners, who'd be acting in their own best interest, to vote him out. (We guess that in the context of this situation, Mr. Sterling openly having a girlfriend while being married isn't a big deal.)
Given Mr. Sterling's apparent history of racially related legal troubles, Bryant Gumble's assessment of "it's surprising anyone is surprised" makes perfect sense and now it would leave people surprised to find if it wasn't Mr. Sterling on the tape. And you can include this column in that category, however, we're still a bit uncomfortable with how Reverend Sharpton is always forcefully condemning before confirmation is established. The dear reverend has a track record as you may know but we forgive him for that, can't help but remember it.
Silent therefore accepting of course also applies to the comments made by Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who broke federal law by using public land for personal profit without permission or paying for it. (We state it that way because that is the fact of the matter and what if you owned the land?) And the simple fact that he began a sentence, "And let me tell you something else about the negro," automatically disqualifies him of any intelligent statement. For many people who advocated for this individual and are now running away in silence, it's deplorable behavior, as much so as Mr. Bundy's statements. Making him into some folk hero was wrong at the start and it never righted itself. Silence on what he said is unacceptable.
Given all this, Mr. Gregory asked the round table for clarification on what Bryant Gumble referred to as the 'mass underneath' [these iceberg tips] earlier in the program. However, their answers left us dissatisfied.
For example, in voting 6-2, the Supreme Court decided that it was up to the individual states to decide whether or not to have affirmative action, Mallory Factor, professor at The Citadel outlined, an outcome with which he seemed to agree - no federal law should apply as to achieve some sort of race neutrality, to use the words of Rich Lowry from The National Review. College applicants' scores and accomplishments should be judged equally without consideration for race. Mr. Factor said that we shouldn't ask one person to tie one hand behind his back so that someone else can get the advantage using two. One, that's not how affirmative action enables people.
What affirmative action does is take into consideration the fact that some people didn't have the same resources, in education at the very least, as another person and therefore the test can not be equal for both. Phrased in another way, does the inner city student generally have the same resources available to him or her as kids in an upper middle class suburb? We all know the answer - no. To deny this reality is willful ignorance.
Race neutrality, as Mr. Lowry described, is a grand idea but achieving it just by proclaiming it isn't really solving the problem. We disagree with him that Clive Bundy's statements are a generational thing and that Mr. Sterling is an outlier. First, if you seen any of the interviews with Mr. Bundy's sons, you'll know that they share his same beliefs on the status of the land, why not on race? Secondly, Jeffrey Goldberg asked the right question - how do you [Rich Lowry] know that Mr. Sterling is an outlier amongst NBA owners?
The pernicious views that the round table repeatedly referred to allude to a subtle, perhaps even casual, institutional racism, which is something that the United States has to acknowledge to ever get passed. It's ok to not be silent and admit that it exists.
Lastly, in a much more broad sense, the U.S., Europe and the rest of the world can not be silent on the cirsis going on in Ukraine, especially in light of White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken plainly saying that Vladimir Putin's goal is to destabilize the country. Mr. Blinken did say that it was not his goal to invade, but we would access it a bit differently. It's not Mr. Putin's goal to invade in a traditional sense. What the Russian government is doing is laying the ground by building up opposition to the government in Kiev to create a civil war, one in which Mr. Putin would have considerable influence.
Mr. Blinken outlined how the sanctions imposed by the U.S. have already had a significant effect on the Russian economy, which is projected to grow less than one percent while the ruble is down 20 percent. We agree with Mr. Blinken that Crimea will be a huge weight on the Russian economy as well. As we previously stated in this column, look how well the people of South Ossentia are doing since joining Russia.
Further sanctions will be inevitable because Mr. Putin is willing to jeopardize Russia's economy for hegemony attempting to restore a semblance of the Soviet Union. Europe can not stay silent on this aggressive behavior by Mr. Putin because it does business with him. Leaders in Europe should join with the U.S. to increase support with Ukraine. And though Mr. Blinken didn't refer to it specifically, it was a good idea for the United States to send marines to Poland for joint exercises. Take a strong approach.
And speaking of strong approaches, it's the only thing Tony Blair, former prime minister of England, said in his interview that we agreed with. He didn't have much to say on Ukraine and the reason is that every single interview he does, he has to justify his past actions on Iraq, which frankly are indefensible - so much so you can not even take him seriously.
Round Table: Mallory Factor, best-selling author and Professor at The Citadel;
Jeffrey Goldberg, Correspondent for The Atlantic and Bloomberg View
Columnist; Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress;
Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
4.20.14: Despite Geneva, Ukraine Will Worsen
"I made a clear statement, find these bastards and bring them to justice," is what Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, said in response to reports that armed pro-Russian protesters and militia were forcing Jews to register in the eastern city of Donetsk.
We start there for two reasons: one, it's refreshing and highly commendable that Mr. Yatsenyuk would not take the diplomatic approach in answering the question and unequivocally stated his feeling on the matter, a righteous one we may add, but sadly when it comes to eastern Ukraine the truth is that his government has little control over preventing such horrendous actions.
The second reason is to illustrate the logic of Putin's approach to the entire crisis in trying to achieve his end goal, which appears to be the territorial recreation of the former Soviet Union, or as close as he can get to it as possible. "Restore the dream of the Soviet Union," Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said when asked his opinion, adding that it would be the greatest disaster of this century to see its reformation. For Putin, this hateful incident causes no emotional stir any which way and is coldly accessed only on the measure of whether it helps achieve the goal or not. Right now, Mr. Putin's government is trying to sew as many seeds of unrest as possible, and even though Mr. Putin didn't orchestrate this new episode of Jewish persecution, he knows it helps his cause. As noted by Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor, Russia wants to create as much as possible before Ukraine's upcoming election.
In the joint interview with Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they both agreed that the United States should take action now, meaning that punitive sanctions should be put in place immediately. And why not, there no intention on the part of the pro-Russian opposition in eastern Ukraine and it doesn't stop Mr. Putin from doing as he wills. On the other hand, one would have to figure that if the United States were to impose sanctions, in the mind of Mr. Putin's government, that is justification to become directly involved in eastern Ukraine including sending in troops. Mr. Putin would say, "Stop the sanctions and we'll stop moving into Ukraine," but he wouldn't, and then you'd have to consider Senator's Murphy's proposition that a NATO ally could be next. David Brooks described Mr. Putin as 19th century expansionist, which seems completely ludicrous in the 21st century, but here we are.
And for Mr. Obama's part, his administration's focus should be assisting the newly formed Ukrainian government on its feet with aid in all forms. When asked what Ukraine needed the prime minister said that it was an easy question to answer because they were in need of so many things. Most notably they need military assistance, but that is something the Obama Administration is reluctant to do. Even though this is a reenactment of the cold war, supplying weapons could turn a cold war into an actual war, something no one wants. Senator Corker said that U.S. policy has helped in creating the crisis in Ukraine, meaning that U.S. inaction in situations like Syria emboldened Russia. However, the senator's comment isn't constructive because the alternative would be direct military intervention. He also repeatedly said that the United States was 'embarrassed' by Russia, which isn't the case and is even rhetorically an unfortunate choice of words, as it reflects poorly on all government, not just the administration.
But Senator Corker's suggestion of building up the security relationship with Ukraine is a much more prudent idea, but a potentially shrewd one, that we agree with because not only does it help with internal defense, it can create the conditions for a large diplomatic presence, which puts military options on pause.
Chuck Todd explained that even inside the administration (of course outside), people are concerned that the president is not 'alpha dog' enough in his posture. Not many actually disagree with the measures that he's taken, but feel that his rhetoric stance is too quiet. So is it a stylistic approach or actual policy that leads Senator Corker to say that the president's foreign policy is always a day late and a dollar short? In other words, the president doesn't talk tough. We're OK with that, as long as Mr. Obama is thoughtful yet quickly decisive. It is what's demanded of the office, and too much chest-thumping isn't.
Round Table: Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent; David Brooks, New York Times Columnist; Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor; David Shribman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Executive Editor
We start there for two reasons: one, it's refreshing and highly commendable that Mr. Yatsenyuk would not take the diplomatic approach in answering the question and unequivocally stated his feeling on the matter, a righteous one we may add, but sadly when it comes to eastern Ukraine the truth is that his government has little control over preventing such horrendous actions.
The second reason is to illustrate the logic of Putin's approach to the entire crisis in trying to achieve his end goal, which appears to be the territorial recreation of the former Soviet Union, or as close as he can get to it as possible. "Restore the dream of the Soviet Union," Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said when asked his opinion, adding that it would be the greatest disaster of this century to see its reformation. For Putin, this hateful incident causes no emotional stir any which way and is coldly accessed only on the measure of whether it helps achieve the goal or not. Right now, Mr. Putin's government is trying to sew as many seeds of unrest as possible, and even though Mr. Putin didn't orchestrate this new episode of Jewish persecution, he knows it helps his cause. As noted by Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor, Russia wants to create as much as possible before Ukraine's upcoming election.
In the joint interview with Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they both agreed that the United States should take action now, meaning that punitive sanctions should be put in place immediately. And why not, there no intention on the part of the pro-Russian opposition in eastern Ukraine and it doesn't stop Mr. Putin from doing as he wills. On the other hand, one would have to figure that if the United States were to impose sanctions, in the mind of Mr. Putin's government, that is justification to become directly involved in eastern Ukraine including sending in troops. Mr. Putin would say, "Stop the sanctions and we'll stop moving into Ukraine," but he wouldn't, and then you'd have to consider Senator's Murphy's proposition that a NATO ally could be next. David Brooks described Mr. Putin as 19th century expansionist, which seems completely ludicrous in the 21st century, but here we are.
And for Mr. Obama's part, his administration's focus should be assisting the newly formed Ukrainian government on its feet with aid in all forms. When asked what Ukraine needed the prime minister said that it was an easy question to answer because they were in need of so many things. Most notably they need military assistance, but that is something the Obama Administration is reluctant to do. Even though this is a reenactment of the cold war, supplying weapons could turn a cold war into an actual war, something no one wants. Senator Corker said that U.S. policy has helped in creating the crisis in Ukraine, meaning that U.S. inaction in situations like Syria emboldened Russia. However, the senator's comment isn't constructive because the alternative would be direct military intervention. He also repeatedly said that the United States was 'embarrassed' by Russia, which isn't the case and is even rhetorically an unfortunate choice of words, as it reflects poorly on all government, not just the administration.
But Senator Corker's suggestion of building up the security relationship with Ukraine is a much more prudent idea, but a potentially shrewd one, that we agree with because not only does it help with internal defense, it can create the conditions for a large diplomatic presence, which puts military options on pause.
Chuck Todd explained that even inside the administration (of course outside), people are concerned that the president is not 'alpha dog' enough in his posture. Not many actually disagree with the measures that he's taken, but feel that his rhetoric stance is too quiet. So is it a stylistic approach or actual policy that leads Senator Corker to say that the president's foreign policy is always a day late and a dollar short? In other words, the president doesn't talk tough. We're OK with that, as long as Mr. Obama is thoughtful yet quickly decisive. It is what's demanded of the office, and too much chest-thumping isn't.
Round Table: Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent; David Brooks, New York Times Columnist; Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor; David Shribman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Executive Editor
Sunday, April 13, 2014
4.13.14: Civil and Voting Rights/ Poor Producing on MTP
We appreciate that Meet The Press went to Boston to honor the city and its heroes one year after the Marathon bombing, but the programming of this week's episode was a true disappointment. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have done the Boston tribute, but it's what they put around it that made for poor Sunday news program television.
First, do the producers of the show have so little faith in its moderator that they feel the need to fill up a good part of the program with recorded segments (Harry Smith's MTP Boston story; Andrea Mitchell's interview with fmr. Sec. Kathleen Sebelius) and weekly features? The interview with Secretary Sebelius should have been conducted on Meet The Press! But sadly, MTP doesn't seem to have the clout that it once did or it would have.
But here's why this week's program was an editorial fall-down. This week is indeed the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon, but it's also the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the civil rights act. It was all over the news this week and Meet The Press didn't touch it at all. The panel discussed voting rights, during the Boston Marathon segment, first-responder Kent Scarna talked about living in a free and open society, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns discussed his new film about the Gettysburg Address, yet Mr. Gregory never discussed why four living presidents gathered in Austin, TX this week. It was like a bad movie where they keep feeding you foreshadowing that goes no where.
All of today's topics tied into the Civil Rights act in someway so it was so odd to us that it was never brought to the fore of the discussion. Not to mention that there were new developing events in Ukraine over night, also not discussed.
The ad naseum discussion of the Affordable Care Act would have not be necessary had the interview with Secretary Sebelius been on Meet The Press. Mr. Gregory did ask one pertinent question, framing it in the correct context; Politically, should the resignation of Ms. Sebelius be seen as a success or failure? Everything beyond that was superfluous. Did Andrea Mitchell ask the former Secretary good questions? Of course, but that's not the point. The point is that Meet The Press shouldn't have to borrow.
President Obama's comments this week on voting rights, tied into the Civil Rights Acts, spurred the conversation for the Round Table. Mr. Obama said that voting was an issue of citizenship and that it was not an issue of either Democrat or Republican. However, he went on to single out Republicans for trying to suppress the vote by enacting all kinds of restrictions that would work against minorities. As you can imagine, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal said that there is no evidence that the vast number of laws state Republican legislatures have passed have had any effect on voting. That's true but there hasn't been a national election (a mid-term for example) since many of them have been enacted. We'll have to wait and see, but what we can say is that we shouldn't be making laws to restrict people from voting but to enable more people to do it.
It's what Kara Swisher, editor of Re/Code, was saying that technology in how we do other things - shopping, communicating - should be applied to our civic responsibilities. That's fine, but she missed the point of the question that charged Republicans with making big efforts to prevent that very evolution of expanded voting. But is it really what Republicans are trying to do? Well, they want to win elections so they're doing what ever they can to make those wins happen. The Republican National Committee knows, though would never admit, that Republican chances of taking over the White House, no matter what they do, are becoming slimmer and slimmer. However, where they can win is in local Congressional districts, and through those local wins maintain power and relevance nationally. To facilitate those wins, Republican controlled state legislatures will gerrymander the district, restrict voting by requiring picture identification, shorten registration and advance balloting periods, pour money into advertising, and you may not like any of it. And if you don't, well here's the rub, it's all legal so Republicans are well within the right of the law to make those moves. If Democrats don't like it, they have to get their act together and grind in the corners - compete for those local seats.
Round Table: Re/Code Co-Executive Editor Kara Swisher, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot, and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Panel in Boston: historian and author Doris Kearns Goodwin, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. David will also talk with Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki and former New England Patriots player Joe Andruzzi
A couple of "By the Ways:"
With agree with Mr. Scarna, who we mentioned earlier, that we don't agree with the apologists because this column believes that ultimately it is you who is responsible for your own actions. Should we, as a society, do all that we can to prevent tragedies like the Boston Marathon bombing? Of course. Do we? Of course not.
A thank you to Senator Ed Markey for mentioning that the Boston segment was produced at Logan Airport and reminding us that it was that very airport from which the 9/11 hijackers took off.
(So the production team for Meet The Press flew into Logan Airport and did the show from Logan Airport? They didn't even go into the city... lame. How about a... oh, we don't know... an American historical site in Boston!)
And in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act, below is the entire text of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, a speech that Ken Burns called the greatest speech ever made in the American English language.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
First, do the producers of the show have so little faith in its moderator that they feel the need to fill up a good part of the program with recorded segments (Harry Smith's MTP Boston story; Andrea Mitchell's interview with fmr. Sec. Kathleen Sebelius) and weekly features? The interview with Secretary Sebelius should have been conducted on Meet The Press! But sadly, MTP doesn't seem to have the clout that it once did or it would have.
But here's why this week's program was an editorial fall-down. This week is indeed the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon, but it's also the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the civil rights act. It was all over the news this week and Meet The Press didn't touch it at all. The panel discussed voting rights, during the Boston Marathon segment, first-responder Kent Scarna talked about living in a free and open society, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns discussed his new film about the Gettysburg Address, yet Mr. Gregory never discussed why four living presidents gathered in Austin, TX this week. It was like a bad movie where they keep feeding you foreshadowing that goes no where.
All of today's topics tied into the Civil Rights act in someway so it was so odd to us that it was never brought to the fore of the discussion. Not to mention that there were new developing events in Ukraine over night, also not discussed.
The ad naseum discussion of the Affordable Care Act would have not be necessary had the interview with Secretary Sebelius been on Meet The Press. Mr. Gregory did ask one pertinent question, framing it in the correct context; Politically, should the resignation of Ms. Sebelius be seen as a success or failure? Everything beyond that was superfluous. Did Andrea Mitchell ask the former Secretary good questions? Of course, but that's not the point. The point is that Meet The Press shouldn't have to borrow.
President Obama's comments this week on voting rights, tied into the Civil Rights Acts, spurred the conversation for the Round Table. Mr. Obama said that voting was an issue of citizenship and that it was not an issue of either Democrat or Republican. However, he went on to single out Republicans for trying to suppress the vote by enacting all kinds of restrictions that would work against minorities. As you can imagine, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal said that there is no evidence that the vast number of laws state Republican legislatures have passed have had any effect on voting. That's true but there hasn't been a national election (a mid-term for example) since many of them have been enacted. We'll have to wait and see, but what we can say is that we shouldn't be making laws to restrict people from voting but to enable more people to do it.
It's what Kara Swisher, editor of Re/Code, was saying that technology in how we do other things - shopping, communicating - should be applied to our civic responsibilities. That's fine, but she missed the point of the question that charged Republicans with making big efforts to prevent that very evolution of expanded voting. But is it really what Republicans are trying to do? Well, they want to win elections so they're doing what ever they can to make those wins happen. The Republican National Committee knows, though would never admit, that Republican chances of taking over the White House, no matter what they do, are becoming slimmer and slimmer. However, where they can win is in local Congressional districts, and through those local wins maintain power and relevance nationally. To facilitate those wins, Republican controlled state legislatures will gerrymander the district, restrict voting by requiring picture identification, shorten registration and advance balloting periods, pour money into advertising, and you may not like any of it. And if you don't, well here's the rub, it's all legal so Republicans are well within the right of the law to make those moves. If Democrats don't like it, they have to get their act together and grind in the corners - compete for those local seats.
Round Table: Re/Code Co-Executive Editor Kara Swisher, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot, and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Panel in Boston: historian and author Doris Kearns Goodwin, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. David will also talk with Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki and former New England Patriots player Joe Andruzzi
A couple of "By the Ways:"
With agree with Mr. Scarna, who we mentioned earlier, that we don't agree with the apologists because this column believes that ultimately it is you who is responsible for your own actions. Should we, as a society, do all that we can to prevent tragedies like the Boston Marathon bombing? Of course. Do we? Of course not.
A thank you to Senator Ed Markey for mentioning that the Boston segment was produced at Logan Airport and reminding us that it was that very airport from which the 9/11 hijackers took off.
(So the production team for Meet The Press flew into Logan Airport and did the show from Logan Airport? They didn't even go into the city... lame. How about a... oh, we don't know... an American historical site in Boston!)
And in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act, below is the entire text of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, a speech that Ken Burns called the greatest speech ever made in the American English language.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Sunday, April 06, 2014
4.6.14: More Money and Louder Speech
The 13th year of war.
Twenty-two returned U.S. veterans commit suicide everyday. In the past year, that's 8,030 individuals.
A soldier returns home from war to find service benefits problematic to get, transition into civilian life difficult to make, and possibly the idea that the reason we went to war in Iraqi was based on information that turned out to not be true, leaving that individual disillusioned and lost. This is part of the legacy for making the decision to fight a preemptive war, an unnecessary one.
Admiral Michael Mullen, Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his interview with David Gregory, emphasized the mental health aspect in the challenges returned soldiers have adjusting and that there is a shortage of mental health professionals in the military. In fact, he went on to say that it's a national problem as well. The result of all this is another mass shooting incident at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.
The all too obvious answer is that we're not doing enough. One thing that the government could do is making free mental health counseling part of the benefits of service - immediately upon return. When a soldier is finished with his or her service, they have the option to get mental health treatment if they want it. As a matter of fact, a military administrator would tell you that veterans have access to such service, but that not until the person has successfully jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops to get insurance - unacceptable.
For practical measures, Admiral Mullen said that there also needs to be better security military bases, but don't you also find it curious that he didn't advocate for soldiers walking around armed? The former leader of all of the nation's soldiers basically said that he doesn't think it's a good idea for soldiers to be carrying guns when they shouldn't need to. And when they're on base, they shouldn't.
What it says is that the leaders of the world's most powerful military do not think that ubiquitous possession of weapons by its soldiers at all times is a good idea; they feel adding more guns to the equation produces a whole separate set of problems, problems Admiral Mullen didn't specifically address. Yet, for the country's citizenry, it's advocated that everyone should be armed.
We guess all you can say to that is, "Welcome the the United States."
And, if you have enough money, you can get politicians to do what ever you want them to do. That was the case before the Supreme Court decided this week to ban caps on how many candidates you can contribute money to. This week's partisan 5 to 4 decision just further weakened campaign finance rules so that the richest have their more heavily weighted say at the policy table. Mr. Gregory asked both guests, "Could this lead to quid pro quo, a corrupt political system as Justice Steven Breyer suggested?" There's no need to even ask the question really. If there was no quid pro quo then why would oil refinery owners be giving millions of dollars to political candidates in the first place?
In another well done debate segment, Mr. Gregory moderated a discussion between the man who brought the case to the court, Shaun McCutcheon, and president of Public Citizen Robert Weissman. When you initially hear about a court decision like this, most just dismiss it as the rich just 'getting richer' as it were, but when you can put a face to it (Mr. McCutcheon's), you can at least try and see the other side of the argument. Now, one of the main premises of Mr. McCutcheon's argument is that money equals speech. One is entitled to that opinion, one which we would strongly disagree with. During the round table, columnist Kathleen Parker casually stated it as fact and then went further saying that 'lots of money is louder speech,' hence making the person with more money more important. In the overall scheme of American Constitutional philosophy, that shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that today, it is.
However, in a way, we kind of agree with Mr. McCutcheon in as much as there's so much money in U.S. politics already, what difference is this decision going to make anyway? Justice Clarence Thomas said that he didn't see a reason to have any campaign finance caps on money. We rarely, if ever in this column, cast direct dispersions on someone, but Justice Thomas is an idiot and if it were left solely to him to make legal decisions for this country, he'd tank the whole works. There, we said it.
Then again, what's the point of limits and laws and rules if everyone easily circumvents them? What we did find heartening is that everyone, from Mr. Weismann to Mr. McCutcheon to Senator Sununu, agreed that there should be transparency in terms of who donates what to whom. It would actually be better to have no limits but make it a firm law that full transparency is required than having faux limits with no transparency.
With full transparency, public opinion - whether it would accept or ostracize - would definitely make big donors think twice about where they're putting their money.
Round Table: Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Columnist; John E. Sununu, Fmr. New Hampshire Senator (R) and Boston Globe Contributor; Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); and Steve Case, Fmr. Chairman & CEO of America Online.
A Last Note:
Harold Ford said the president shouldn't do a victory lap now that over seven million people have signed up for insurance through the exchanges. Mr. Ford is very much for the Affordable Care Act, but also has his concerns. We always find Mr. Ford's punditry frustrating because it seems as though he continual wants it both ways. Now, we realize that every issue has its nuance and every big law like the ACA is in need of fixing, but in terms wanting to have people listen to what you say, you have to sound as though you believe in something more solidly.
Pardoning that brief digression, at the end of this first marathon the president's run, where everyone and their mother has been sticking out a leg to try to trip you, he successfully crossed the finish. Take the lap.
Twenty-two returned U.S. veterans commit suicide everyday. In the past year, that's 8,030 individuals.
A soldier returns home from war to find service benefits problematic to get, transition into civilian life difficult to make, and possibly the idea that the reason we went to war in Iraqi was based on information that turned out to not be true, leaving that individual disillusioned and lost. This is part of the legacy for making the decision to fight a preemptive war, an unnecessary one.
Admiral Michael Mullen, Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his interview with David Gregory, emphasized the mental health aspect in the challenges returned soldiers have adjusting and that there is a shortage of mental health professionals in the military. In fact, he went on to say that it's a national problem as well. The result of all this is another mass shooting incident at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.
The all too obvious answer is that we're not doing enough. One thing that the government could do is making free mental health counseling part of the benefits of service - immediately upon return. When a soldier is finished with his or her service, they have the option to get mental health treatment if they want it. As a matter of fact, a military administrator would tell you that veterans have access to such service, but that not until the person has successfully jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops to get insurance - unacceptable.
For practical measures, Admiral Mullen said that there also needs to be better security military bases, but don't you also find it curious that he didn't advocate for soldiers walking around armed? The former leader of all of the nation's soldiers basically said that he doesn't think it's a good idea for soldiers to be carrying guns when they shouldn't need to. And when they're on base, they shouldn't.
What it says is that the leaders of the world's most powerful military do not think that ubiquitous possession of weapons by its soldiers at all times is a good idea; they feel adding more guns to the equation produces a whole separate set of problems, problems Admiral Mullen didn't specifically address. Yet, for the country's citizenry, it's advocated that everyone should be armed.
We guess all you can say to that is, "Welcome the the United States."
And, if you have enough money, you can get politicians to do what ever you want them to do. That was the case before the Supreme Court decided this week to ban caps on how many candidates you can contribute money to. This week's partisan 5 to 4 decision just further weakened campaign finance rules so that the richest have their more heavily weighted say at the policy table. Mr. Gregory asked both guests, "Could this lead to quid pro quo, a corrupt political system as Justice Steven Breyer suggested?" There's no need to even ask the question really. If there was no quid pro quo then why would oil refinery owners be giving millions of dollars to political candidates in the first place?
In another well done debate segment, Mr. Gregory moderated a discussion between the man who brought the case to the court, Shaun McCutcheon, and president of Public Citizen Robert Weissman. When you initially hear about a court decision like this, most just dismiss it as the rich just 'getting richer' as it were, but when you can put a face to it (Mr. McCutcheon's), you can at least try and see the other side of the argument. Now, one of the main premises of Mr. McCutcheon's argument is that money equals speech. One is entitled to that opinion, one which we would strongly disagree with. During the round table, columnist Kathleen Parker casually stated it as fact and then went further saying that 'lots of money is louder speech,' hence making the person with more money more important. In the overall scheme of American Constitutional philosophy, that shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that today, it is.
However, in a way, we kind of agree with Mr. McCutcheon in as much as there's so much money in U.S. politics already, what difference is this decision going to make anyway? Justice Clarence Thomas said that he didn't see a reason to have any campaign finance caps on money. We rarely, if ever in this column, cast direct dispersions on someone, but Justice Thomas is an idiot and if it were left solely to him to make legal decisions for this country, he'd tank the whole works. There, we said it.
Then again, what's the point of limits and laws and rules if everyone easily circumvents them? What we did find heartening is that everyone, from Mr. Weismann to Mr. McCutcheon to Senator Sununu, agreed that there should be transparency in terms of who donates what to whom. It would actually be better to have no limits but make it a firm law that full transparency is required than having faux limits with no transparency.
With full transparency, public opinion - whether it would accept or ostracize - would definitely make big donors think twice about where they're putting their money.
Round Table: Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Columnist; John E. Sununu, Fmr. New Hampshire Senator (R) and Boston Globe Contributor; Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); and Steve Case, Fmr. Chairman & CEO of America Online.
A Last Note:
Harold Ford said the president shouldn't do a victory lap now that over seven million people have signed up for insurance through the exchanges. Mr. Ford is very much for the Affordable Care Act, but also has his concerns. We always find Mr. Ford's punditry frustrating because it seems as though he continual wants it both ways. Now, we realize that every issue has its nuance and every big law like the ACA is in need of fixing, but in terms wanting to have people listen to what you say, you have to sound as though you believe in something more solidly.
Pardoning that brief digression, at the end of this first marathon the president's run, where everyone and their mother has been sticking out a leg to try to trip you, he successfully crossed the finish. Take the lap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)