|
Lone Wolf Chronicles
Saturday January 29, 2011
I have always sworn that I would not enter into the debate concerning Barack Obama's place of birth. I honestly thought it was a matter of flogging a dead horse. Yet here we are, two years plus on and "birthers" maintain that there is still life in the old nag. In fact, I fully expect it to reappear, all dressed up to hide its sway back and saddle sores not to mention its very lifelessness, the closer we get to the 2012 election. With that in mind, I suggest that these so-called "birthers" take a look at facts that tie directly to something they accept. And here they are.
Even birthers accept that the late Stanley Ann Dunham is/was Obama's mother, right? So look at that and try to find somewhere in US records that she ever traveled to Kenya, where you claim Barack Obama the younger was born. While you are at it, try to find any evidence that she ever renounced her US citizenship. I submit that you will fail on both counts. And failing those, I would suggest that you drag the carcass of your dead horse away.
But you won't. You can't. That would mean giving up a line of attack that might well sway voters in 2012. It would mean addressing the problem that lies at the core of this entire non-issue. You fail to ask yourselves, "who, back in 1961 would have had the foresight to predict that a mixed race son of two then-college students would grow up to run for President?"
That is what it would have taken, a conspiracy from the time of birth of that son, to conceal any alternate "truth". The newspapers in existence at the time, the state agency involved in recording and reporting the birth, the parents and extended families, friends - all would have had to participate in some massive conspiracy to falsify details of a single birth.
Still, if you enjoy conspiracies so much, how about this one? The move afoot to repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is actually an alternative line of attack on Barack Obama. Get rid of that pesky thing and maybe, just maybe he won't be eligible to run for reelection come 2012. Crazy, eh? But no more so than the conspiracy outlined above.
| | | |
|
|
Friday January 28, 2011
For the uninitiated, New Zealand has what are called State Owned Enterprises. That is, the New Zealand government owns or has a controlling share in various businesses. The national airline, Air New Zealand, is one example. Four of the country's main power companies are others. And there are more.
Recently, Prime Minister John Key has suggested changing that. He has indicated that his government would consider selling down its interest in these various SOEs in order to raise capital for investment in other assets. He also sees it as a way to reduce current government borrowing to meet ongoing expenses. In the process and to add credence to his proposal, he touts the move as a way for "Mum and Dad" investors to purchase shares in what he terms "blue chip" companies.
One glaring flaw in this argument is that "Mum and Dad" investors, as taxpayers, already own shares in these enterprises. Moreover, by labeling these industries "blue chip", he appears to be contradicting his claim that opening up these companies to private investors would "improve efficiency." Worse, he is overlooking recent history.
Such asset sales have been tried before. Air New Zealand passed from government to private ownership as did Kiwirail, the national rail system. The results were nearly disastrous. Private owners stripped both companies of value. Profits fled off shore. And the next government found it necessary to repurchase both, at a considerable disadvantage.
These suggestions continue a trend indicating that Key is receiving or listening to questionable economic advice and following same. Last year, he followed a US Republican strategy of tax cuts "to stimulate the economy". They were heavily weighted in favor of the wealthy. As a counterbalance, his government raised the GST (Goods and Services Tax) from 12.5% to 15%. Yet the latter move had conflicting aims. One was to balance the lost revenue from the tax cuts. The second was to reduce consumption and encourage saving.
The second outweighed the first in figures compiled since the GST increase. Consumers did indeed reduce spending and that in turn meant less tax revenues gained despite the increase. Meanwhile, the stimulus of the tax cuts has proved virtually invisible.
Key and company seem mystified at all that has come to pass - or failed to come to pass. But what did they expect when, in their case, it seems that SOE stands for Same Old Economics?
| | | |
|
|
Wednesday January 12, 2011
Thanks to Sarah Palin, I learned something today. Well, I didn't learn it directly from her and since she despises being accused of indirect influence, perhaps I should take that back. No matter because her choice of the term "blood libel" made me curious. Was "libel" not sufficient?
At any rate, I have indulged my curiosity and learned that "blood libel" is actually "a centuries-old anti-Semitic slander: that Jews use the blood of Christian children for religious rituals." I have yet to find though any "liberal media" accusing Palin of "us(ing) the blood of Christian children for religious rituals."
Not to be outdone (out-shouted?), Rush Limbaugh "jokingly" opines that the Democrats secretly orchestrated the shootings in Arizona to further their political agenda, especially gun control. Presumably Limbaugh slept through November when Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives. No telling what target will next feel the slash of his rapier wit.
Incidentally, I have noticed that in articles and news reports pertaining to accused shooter Jared Loughner that the accompanying photo is now his mug shot rather than the one of him that could have come from someone's photo album. The mug shot is more current, of course, and I must say Loughner appears somehow "off" in it whereas the original photo showed a young man who could easily have been the kid next door. It begs the questions: what went on and for how long between the two photos? How did that average kid transition into someone who manages to appear at least "off" if not deranged? I have heard others remark to the same effect, using words to describe the police photo as "spooky", "scary", "mad", and just plain "nuts", plus, "looks like a real psycho."
Remember though that the media doesn't influence opinions or beliefs else we would find our airways filled with product advertising repeated ad nauseam.
| | | |
|
|
Monday January 10, 2011
When I worked in a mental health profession and in social services, there was a standard required for commitment to a mental health facility. The standard was that the individual in question "poses a danger or threat of danger to self, family, or others." And while that was the standard applied in Kentucky, I believe it is the same or similar to those applied in other states which begs the question: what happened in the case of Jared Loughner?
Loughner, of course, is the young man accused of murdering six people and wounding a dozen others in Arizona this past Saturday. And in the aftermath of the shootings, details of his past are rapidly emerging that suggest someone who definitely met the standard for commitment to a mental health facility. Yet he was not, was instead able to move freely and armed, with disastrous consequences.
Blame? There is plenty to go around - and that is without indicting those who spew hatred and vitriol. Mind, that is not to say that those hate-mongers are blameless, only that others closer to Loughner ought to be asking themselves, "why didn't I act?"
Let us leave Loughner himself out of the equation for the moment and ask, what of his parents? He was living at home. Did they not know what that college said of their son, that he needed psychological help? Were there no warning signs that he was troubled? Perhaps not, both because of what I would call "parental blindness" and because maybe, just maybe, their son appeared no better or worse than other young people. Too, Loughner is 22, an adult chronologically at least, so it is very possible his parents treated him as such and afforded him at least some measures of privacy. He may even have appeared to them to be functionally normal. Time will tell.
What of friends or at least acquaintances? Judging from their statements, several regarded him as strange. Some had even heard his bizarre ideations. And their reactions were predictable. They began to avoid him. Better and easier that than trying to say, "uh, Jared, maybe you should get some help." After all, what young person really knows how to respond? At a similar age, I doubt that I would have.
Then how about those college professors and officials who became concerned enough to suspend him? Did any of them think to follow up? Would any have even had time? It is far more likely that Loughner became a case of "out of sight, out of mind."
The State of Arizona, indeed states all across the country should now be asking themselves hard questions about their treatment of the mentally ill. It was and is all to the well and good to de-institutionalize mental health care because it is true that many of the mentally ill can and do function in the public realm. And it is to the good as well to de-stigmatize mental illness and its sufferers. The problem is, by scaling back institutions, did the states wind up throwing out babies with the bath water? Probably so and therein lies the rub when it comes to mental illness. It is difficult to impossible to tell when or if anyone is "cured". Worse, for those who need medications to continue to function, with some counseling added for good measure, support systems in the community are often bare bones or basic, lacking even sufficient staff to follow up when/if a client misses an appointment.
So what of the individual? At present, insofar as Loughner is concerned, no one has said whether he was in any sort of treatment or whether he was or was supposed to be on medications. At a guess, I would say the answers to both would be no. I believe further that on some level he knew that his actions were "wrong" - witness his plea; "don't be mad at me" - but that his compulsion to act on his beliefs overwhelmed all else.
Ultimately, of course, none of this changes anything, not for Loughner. Whatever the outcome of his trial, there is no doubt that he pulled the trigger and must face whatever consequences may come. For the rest of us, in and around all of the rhetoric, the question becomes, "how do we as a society prevent other Loughners from arising?"
There will be no easy answers.
| | | |
|
|
Saturday October 16, 2010
I like Toadie's suggestion that politicians be forced to wear the logos of their sponsors, much as NASCAR drivers do. That way we would at least have an idea of who owns them.
| | | |
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
| |
2697 Visitors
|
