All Governments "Lie"

It's true.  Governments lie.  It is in their DNA - actually, the DNA of those who are in positions of authority.
It really doesn't matter which political party is in power, they just can't help it.  As recorded in an LDS book of scripture: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (Doctrine and Covenants 121:39).

Take the attack on the US embassy on Benghazi, Libya, that continues to plague the Administration.  After rewriting the talking points some 20+ times, the Administration send poor Ambassador Susan Rice to explain what happened to all of the media outlets, with the argument that the attack was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic film called the "Innocence of Muslims", and not an act of terrorism. The problem was, that it was a planned act of terrorism that occurred on September 11, 2012 (an interesting date) and that the government knew it, and lied about what it knew to the press.

Sounds pretty despicable, doesn't it?  Well, in fact, there was method in their madness.  The US had facilitated the overthrow of a totalitarian government and was hoping for influence among those involved, in light of the so called Arab Spring that had happened in Tunisia and Egypt.  Despite the fact that the US Constitution protects contemptible speech, the Administration wanted to say that the Americans were sorry that one of theirs would offend Muslims - it was all in an attempt by the Administration to keep a foot in the door.

The problem is that the government feels that the lie will suffice, and permit it to accomplish its objectives - after all, it seems to have worked in the past.  Or has it?  Let's see ... the government knew it wasn't true, the instigators in Libya knew it wasn't true, those who participated in the violence knew that since America protected the offensive speech, so it could never really be sorry (oh, we arrested the movie maker because he had violated his parole) - and there would be plenty of reasons to hate the infidels.  So, really, the only people deceived were the American people.

Now Congress is fixated on hearings to discredit those who perpetuated the lie, rather than working on more important things.  A lot of good that Administration lie has done.

For us to truly have a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" (Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address), we need to remember that governments will lie, media outlets will selectively report the "facts" and that we must be engaged to ferret out the truth so we can influence our representatives to work towards the common good.

It is better to become right than to think you are right.

Don't get mad, get even.  But not with revenge, but with discovering the truth.

Republicans

My son, Jonathan, challenged me to post "negative" comments about Republicans. This is a challenge, given that there isn't a "face" of the Republican party, as Pres. Obama is the "face" for the Democrats, the current administration, and the majorities in both the House and the Senate. Since the Republicans aren't in charge, and don't have consistent voice, the only thing I could comment on are individual political views, which are quite varied - not very productive. It would be like focusing soley on the personalities of Sen. Reed or Rep. Pelosi.

As so many do, I could focus on individual foibles, such as "crib notes written on the hand", the prolific use of "I" in speaches, but I these critiques are pointless. As is so common in the press, Michele Obama was asked to comment on Sarah Palin, to which she responded, "I don't know her." It is nice to see a class act, rather than for her to take a cheap shot.

I try to live by the principle stated in Matthew 5:22 - "But whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire". I have found that even those that we (or the media) label as "stupid" or "idiot" often see things that we can't, as we are blinded by our pride.

Another principle that I try to live by: It is better to become right rather than be "right".

The Wall Street Journal published an interesting article, entitled "Cheney's Revenge":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704022804575042112185849380.html

Obama, An Enigma No More

There have been a flurry of op-ed pieces during December on how to define President Obama. Liberals have been frustrated with him with his lack of focused attention on Health Care, helping Wall Street over Main Street, and his adoption on a number of Bush approaches on dealing with the war in Afghanistan, Guantanimo, etc. And then there was that Nobel "peace" prize acceptance speach where he spoke of the "just war" concept (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-a_n_386837.html). Is he "liberal" enough, or just pragmatic?

The fact is that Mr. Obama is a "counter-puncher" - he lets others commit, assesses the results, and then, at the last moment, commits himself when it is safe to do so. The evidence of this can be seen in his administration's actions on Health Care. He let his party's legislative leaders take all of the heat, so he could claim success when the Senate finally passed that atrosity of a bill.

Why did the Afghanistan stratgy take so long? Because he was placed in a situation where he had to lead, instead of waiting for someone else to try it. There wasn't a clear, safe answer - too much risk. He had Sec. Clinton, Sec. Gates and the military brass on one side, and VP Biden and the liberal wing of his party on the other. Just read carefully his speach on his Afghanistan
decision" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan-speech-text-excerpts_n_376088.html). Lukewarm at best IMHO.

This isn't a new pattern. Mr. Obama took the same approach in the Illinois Legislature and the US Senate (remember the "here" votes).

Thus, he is not a "leader" in a traditional sense but more of a risk-adverse, political opportunist.

The problem with being a counter puncher is in the hestancy to commit, and a skilled opponent can take advantage of the hesitancy by constantly putting situations in front of the counter puncher. Think of the recent attempted bombing of the jet on approach to Detroit. True, the bomber was inept (thank goodness), but there are scores of these idiots with their PETN and syringes just waiting to slip by TSA again.

Bush/Cheney may have been carelessly proactive, but Obama is overly cautious and reactive. Too much (of the wrong) vision vs. not enough vision.

One wonders what the world would be like if Mr. Obama with his counter-punching techniques were to have been president during the Cuban missile crisis (October 1962) instead of Pres. Kennedy.

Scary.

NY Times Letter, 12/1/2009: A Pathetic Afghan Strategy

Pres. Obama's war speech highlighted two truisms.

First, while it is unwise to fight a war from a political posture, America always does. The world, friends and foes alike, know that we plan our wars around the election cycle. Of course, we will begin a surge just prior to the mid-term election cycle to avoid appearing weak. Of course, we will promise to draw down in 2011 just before we get to the presidential elections. The Taliban have us pegged. All they will have to do is wait - they're not going anywhere - it's where they live.

Second, we always refight the last war. It took us a while to figure out how to win in Iraq, so our military thinks that the same thing will work here. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Iraqis consisted of three jealous groups, Sunni, Shia, and Kurds - each well defined, each anxious to keep the power they got when Saddam fell (Shia, Kurds) or to keep from being disenfranchised (Sunni). Once we figured that situation out, it was possible to leverage the group-interest.

Afghanistan is so different. They have towns with tribal leaders, war lords running a collection of towns, drug lords providing commerce with the outside world, the Taliban, al Qaida, and a weak central government. And with America running a war on an election cycle, there is no way that we will have the staying power to really find the solution. Once we leave, a vacuum will appear waiting for the next strongman (group, whatever) to fill it.

It would be easy to call the President stupid, but he is merely a creature of our political process. He seems intelligent, but peel away the façade and he is simply the face of a political party. Unfortunately, the rest of us aren't much smarter if we think that this plan is worth much.

NY Times Letter, 11/15/2009: Re: Giuliani Criticizes Terror Trials in New York

Despite the concerns of Giuliani about holding the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York, the real problem is that it will cast American jurisprudence in a negative light. The principle at the bedrock of our legal system is that the accused is presumed innocent and that the apprehension, interrogation, admissibility of evidence, discovery, and trial all follow a pattern in order to to be consistent with that principle. The fact KSM was kidnapped from his home in Pakistan, taken to various hidden jails throughout Europe, water-boarded, etc., does not follow the legal principles of our system, nor international law. To hold a criminal trial with that backdrop is absurd.

KSM is a prisoner of war (on terror), and our country's conduct was to be expected with what may occur during war time, excepting for not adhering to the Geneva convention (protecting our service personnel along with those we detain.) If there are war crimes, then a war crimes tribunal needs to be held, otherwise, KSM should be treated as a prisoner of war, with his treatment consistent with our international commitments.

We want someone's blood to pay for 9/11 - and he wants to be a martyr. Perhaps the greatest punishment would be to let him live as a prisoner until Al Qaeda is defeated - which may be a long, long time.

Our legal system would remain consistent with our principles. It is what makes us different from the rest.

Letters to the NY Times

One of my favorite pastimes is sending letters to the NY Times. Now, they don't usually post my letter (if they do, I'll be sure to reference the link), so I've decided to post a couple of recent letters at the suggestion of my daughter Adrienne.

Adrienne has grown up into a wonderful woman, although one has to wonder about a person who gets just as excited over a book on the Cold War as fine desserts.

Obama, the Enigma

In my earlier post, I indicated that I felt that Obama has yet to be defined. It was nice to see an article, entitled "Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Apart" in that bastian of liberal thought, the New York Times, which highlights the point I was trying to make. The article is based on interviews with faculty and former students of Obama while he spent his 12 years at the University of Chicago. The article does not trash Obama - I really don't care for pundits that use exaggerated fighting words and diatribes to belittle the target of their contempt. (In fact, I must say that I do respect Obama for not stooping to that level.)

Its nice to know that while I haven't figured him out yet, the faculty and his students at UC couldn't do it either after 12 years.

Who to vote for?

News Flash: Due to the implosions of the McCain and Obama campaigns, the Republican and Democratic conventions picked the runners-up as their candidates for President of the United States. In November, it will be Mike Huckabee vs Hillary Clinton ...
Just kidding ;-) I did think that I heard some stomachs rumble a bit ... and a few flight reservations to Canada ...

In browsing the net, I found this article interesting: "Obama and the illusion of leadership". Its a bit long, and you may need a dictionary for some of the words, but there are some nuggets of truth in the thing.

As far as McCain is concerned - he is a known quantity. He has his own mind, gets really upset at times, has a good idea from time to time. He has become better in the last few years in the Senate at moving the levers of power. While he can be a bit of a loose cannon, no one would ever claim that he would be controlled by his vice president.

Then there is Obama. Because the current president's popularity is in the dumps, one would expect that any democatic candidate could beat the Republican's candidate. However Obama, despite his two inspirational books, has yet to be defined - which causes some uneasiness among the electorate.

For example, Obama's second book "The Audacity of Hope" is derived from a sermon by none other than Jeremiah Wright - who Obama was later to abandon. While I will admit that I have yet to read Obama's books (I plan to), I've found that lots of folks can write and speak grand phrases, yet hide the real person. The question is: Who is the real Obama?

I must admit, I have more respect for Michelle Obama than her husband. She, at least, appears authentic. I'd rather vote for her.

Understanding Politicians

Pity the poor politician. We give them such a hard time. Perhaps the problem lies with our lack of understanding of a representative democracy and what a politician really is.

In a representative democracy, politicians (like lawyers) represent those who put them in office (for lawyers, it is those that hire them), rather than all that live in their district, county, state, country, etc. Putting a politician in office doesn't begin at the ballot box, but begins well before that time (raising funds, canvasing neighborhoods, building alliances, etc.)

When a politician speaks, he/she is always playing to the audience, whether that audience is in attendance at the rally, the press who is covering the event, or other groups who will hear about the speach. It is simply advertising for "business".

The politician is not necessarily speaking about what he/she believes, but rather is trying to articulate what the audience believes, thus demonstrating that he/she can be an effective representative for the group. "Sincerity, I can fake that." (a line from a television show).

Whichever group (or groups) of audiences gives the politician the critical mass to be elected, they will be the ones who will receive the attention when that person is in office. This then explains how a politician can be personally against abortion but will support legislation that enables it to be more accessible. Just as a lawyer who is representing one that is accused (whether actually guilty or not), the politician is representing those who put them in office.

The politician is also his own constituent, with desires, goals and objectives. Depending upon who he/she is soliciting for votes, those motives may or may not be disclosed. Sometimes their movtives are admirable, sometimes criminal. But they exist, never the less.

We may rail against "special interests", "lobbyists" as having too much influence with our politicians - but guess what, it is the special interest, groups represented by the lobbyist, that put the politician in power or provide the benefits of power that make things happen. In addition, compromise is an essential part of the equations in order to get things done.

So, if you're dissatisfied with what is happening in Washington, take "special interest" with others of like interest and build a coalition of power that will catch the interest of the politician that you are trying to influence or replace. That is the only way it works.

Extrodinary Things from the Ordinary

As the sun began to set, two weary travelers reached the outskirts of Bethlehem. It had been a long journey from Galilee, though the weather had been pleasant. As Mary’s time drew near, it became obvious to Joseph that they would not reach his relative’s home that night, and that he would need to find some shelter.

The inn that they came to had no room for them, although the inn-keeper suggested that they might use the stable that was around back. This was not what Mary had pictured for the birth of her son. The stable was so ordinary, so common. At least they would only have to stay for the night.

In the hills above Bethlehem were shepherds watching their sheep during the night. The sky above them had turned from blue to black and stars filled the heavens. The sheep were well-fed on the new spring growth sprouting from the hillside and were beginning to settle down. It was just an ordinary night.

Suddenly, an angel appeared before the shepherds. Sensing their fear and surprise, the angel said: "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Following the promptings of the angel, the shepherds hurried down the hillside and found that common, ordinary stable, and in a manger meant to provide food for the animals, they found the baby Jesus, they found Christ the Lord.

By following the promptings of the Spirit, we too can find the extraordinary among the ordinary.

Early one morning, as the Savior taught the people in the temple, the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman to Him that had been taken in adultery. The woman listened as her accusers questioned Jesus as to whether she should be stoned to death according to the Law of Moses. Jesus appeared not to hear her accusers and wrote some words on the ground where he sat. Rising up to meet the accusers, he said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Then he stooped down and wrote some more on the ground.

Convicted by their own consciences, each of the accusers left the Savior and the woman, leaving them alone. The Savior asked the woman, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" to which she replied: "No man, Lord." Jesus then looked into her eyes and said: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Our "ordinary" may be filled with sin and mistakes and our souls be harrowed up with guilt. We may feel that there is no help for us – that all is lost. But through faith on His name and repenting of our sins we can be freed from those ordinary chains, and feel of His extraordinary love and peace.

As Jesus had left the temple, slipping past those who would stone Him, He saw a man who had been blind since birth. That the blind and lame huddled by the gates of the temple in hopes of some relief was quite ordinary.

His disciples asked: "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered them, saying: "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Jesus spat upon the ground and made clay from the dirt and the moisture, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. He then told the man to go to the pool of Siloam. The man went, washed, and came seeing.

Sometimes our "ordinary" is filled with sorrows, infirmities, disappointments or tragedies, none of which were our fault, they just happed. But if we allow the Savior to anoint our eyes, we can wash away the sorrow, anger and bitterness from our eyes, and see extraordinary things.

May your Christmas be filled with the extraordinary.