Monday, October 15, 2012

The Nature of Politics

This weekend I took time to watch the 1st State of the Union address that Reagan made to the joint session of Congress in February of 1981. An amazing step back into time... for me, I likely followed much of that speech as an 7 year old, as something happening in the background in my parent's lives. I was very aware of Reagan... his presidency was timed to my awakening to political life. And I have always held him in the highest regard, still do.

Watching this speech now helps demonstrate the complexity of leadership, especially political leadership. You have to pander to the base a bit. You have to dodge specifics a bit. And then you get to wrap it all up in grand political thought. That grandness of thought arrives, in this speech, in the last 5-7 minutes, and oh, is it worth it.
"The taxing power of the government must be used to provide revenue for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change."
The grandness of speech is so necessary. I'm seeing it in the conversations the CEO of my current company is having with us now, as we transit a period of serious change in the organization. How to execute against that is the hard part, and is where we all become so human. We fail some, we succeed some. People will chose to see portions of both, and decide that we are a liar or a savior... so as to position themselves for social acceptance or to promote the next political victory.

So how does one go about executing the change? That is the question I'm studying now.



Friday, October 12, 2012

Benghazi Question...

If the embassy was asking for more security... if the ambassador himself was asking for more security... it's reasonable to assume he knew there was a threat. In any normal situation, common sense would convince this man to be anywhere but Benghazi on 9/11. Here's the question: What did Amb. Chris Stevens know that made him put his life and the life of other embassy staff at risk? Why was he in Benghazi on 9/11? What was so important that he would risk his life? I don't think it could possibly be as simple as an assignment. There is something else going on...

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

The Power of Clear Perspective

When society hunts down the perpetrator of a string of crimes involving the intentional death of numerous innocent citizens... we refer to those people as serial killers. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc. When crimes of the same vicious nature occur urban neighborhoods populated predominantly by citizens lacking economic resources... we call the perpetrator a gang lord or a gang-banger or some other title of relative honor. What would change in how we pursue these criminals, in the nature of our effort, in the awareness of and participation by the community, and the ultimate success of those efforts, if we could take a clear-headed view of these killers and called them what they were? A gang leader, and a gang-banger... they are both psychopaths and serial killers. Same holds for a mafia type, despite the glamorization of such personalities in programming on HBO (Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire).

Thursday, March 01, 2012

The Problem with Romney

Just ran into this opinion piece by Ann Coulter against Santorum...


Even when I agree with Rick Santorum, listening to him argue the point almost makes me change my mind. 

I also wonder why he's running for president, rather than governor, when the issues closest to his heart are family-oriented matters about which the federal government can, and should, do very little. 

It's strange that Santorum doesn't seem to understand the crucial state-federal divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban contraception. 

Of course she is correct about the states having the legal authority that the Constitution does not provide the federal government... but the Feds have usurped that power with Obamacare.

One of the key reasons Santorum decided to run, and his wife concurred, is because their little girl would not exist in this world if she was conceived under Obamacare.  Neither would my nephew, in all likelihood.  Diagnosed in the womb with significant medical abnormalities, the parents would be given no choice but to abort.  Both children are 3 years old now.  Life matters.  Life is the miracle.

Yes, the state could institute policies, legally, that exert a control over healthcare and the personal decisions involved... but the people have a much better chance of preventing or eliminating those laws, because they are more local.  The Feds do not have that authority.  They have taken that authority unto themselves.  It must be resisted.  Obamacare must be overturned.

Romney has indeed done the opposite, and seized the power over medical decisions on behalf of the state.  He simply cannot understand the moral implications of his policies.  His candidacy is, very simply, corrupted by this.

Friday, February 24, 2012

CA Judges: Judge your Sexuality (and then tell us all about it!)

Soooo.... CA is now requiring their judges to tell their employer what sexual preference they identify... language too complicated: who they like to f*ck when the urge arises.

There are some real gems in this article, like:

"The process of self-revealing one's sexual orientation is an element of a now yearly process."

I should probably fault the author of the post at the Weekly Standard for that language.  how exactly is it "self-revealing" if you are required to reveal this information as a course of your employment?  And what if you decided not to "self-reveal" at all?  Would they simply "reveal" it for you?  Would they have to perform an inspection for that?  A test?

And walk down this path with me... The state claims their collecting this information to ensure equality or distribution, etc.  Just curious... but if they found the gender preference was suffered from a mal-distribution, what would the remedy?  Fire a non-gay judge to open a slot for a gay one?  Fire a gay male judge to place lesbian female?  Fine the Governor daily until the gender balance is restored?  Would a gay person who a judge ruled against be able to appeal the case claiming that the court was not fair from the start?  Would an aggrieved straight person be able to do the same?  Would the whole court system have to shut down if it was found they were short a trans-gendered representative, based on the percentage of such in the general population?  Would the San Francisco regional courts have to fulfill a different balance than the courts covering Modoc County?

This is the height of ridiculousness... more at the link

In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.California“[The Administrative Office of the Courts] is contacting all judges and justices to gather data on race/ethnicity, gender identification, and sexual orientation,” reads an email sent by Romunda Price of the Administrative Office of the Courts. A copy of Price’s memo was obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
“Providing complete and accurate aggregate demographic data is crucial to garnering continuing legislative support for securing critically needed judgeships,” Price writes.
The process of self-revealing one’s sexual orientation is an element of a now yearly process. “To ensure that the AOC reports accurate data and to avoid the need to ask all judges to provide this information on an annual basis, the questionnaire asks that names be provided. The AOC, however, will release only aggregate statistical information, by jurisdiction, as required by the Government Code and will not identify any specific justice or judge.”
Philip R. Carrizosa of the executive office of communications at the Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts, confirmed the authenticity of Price’s email regarding gender identification and sexual orientation to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

 more at the link

Monday, February 06, 2012

A Moral Solution

A Greek tragedy, playing out on a massive stage with the whole world as their audience. Is there any way to avoid a calamitous collapse? No, I don't think so. But not because it isn't possible to avoid collapse, more because Greek society is no longer capable of the moral strength necessary to succeed. Moral Solutions. That is what is required. The people, of America, much less Greece or any other entitled nation, must decide voluntarily to forgo the benefits of the gifts they have voted themselves over the years. How else will it resolve? Will the youngest generation go to work nosing that 10, 20, 30% or more of their labor and effort will go to paying for the luxurious lifestyle of their grand parents? Will the middle aged folk be content to forgo their benefits, scheduled a mere 5 to 10 years hence... While their neighbors win out because they have lived already past the magic deadline? No. Tey will not. The people who a currently entitled must blaze the trail. They must wake up and say "No, thank you." They must decide to forgo their free CNN to ensure the opportunity for their grandchildren to work for and earn a new lunch. The current entitlees must must make the moral decision to work for their own bread rather than enslaving the next generation(s) to a tab they will never settle themselves. It is not moral to take food from your babies. ...but if the people do not come to this decks option voluntarily... Well, the there will be violence.