Archive for August, 2008

Qualified for President?

August 28, 2008 at 7:18 am · Filed under Uncategorized

The statements are bantered about: “He is qualified, he is not qualified. This leads me to ask: “What are the qualifications to be President of the United States?” The Constitution of the United States says the President must be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and an inhabitant of the United States for at least 14 years. The only other qualification mentioned is in Amendment 22 that limits a President to two terms.   
So, what qualifications have past Presidents had? We have had some who were military officers, some who had served as governor of a state, and some who have served the Senate or House of Representatives. Did any of those experiences satisfy most Americans of their qualifications? Ulysses. S. Grant was a successful general, Jimmy Carter was Governor of Georgia, Richard Nixon was a congressman and Vice President yet many people claim they we poor presidents.
Abraham Lincoln was never a general, governor or senator and served only one term in the House of Representatives, yet most people would count him as one of our greatest Presidents.

It is clear to me that whether a person is “qualified” to be President is a matter of opinion. I think a President must be our leader. A leader should have our confidence, inspire us, should be able to stimulate our imagination and excite our dreams. Such qualities are not best judged by a list of jobs held. These qualities constitute personal traits, talents, gifts. Maybe the best qualification for President is character.

 

 

 

 

Comments

Gullible Voters?

August 26, 2008 at 7:00 am · Filed under Uncategorized

Are we gullible voters, or do Internet bloggers just think we are easy to fool?

Recently I received an blog claiming to present military causality “facts” that stated that more U.S. soldiers died during the years of Bill Clinton’s presidency than have died during the Bush years.

The blog claimed that 14107 died during Clinton years vs 7932 during the first six years of Bush. The source the blogger cited, however, says 7500 during Clinton years and 8989 during the first six years of the Bush administration.

Why would someone double the number of deaths during the Clinton years and expect us to believe? Did he think we would not check? Possibly worse he failed to mention that during the 1992-2000 period there was only one (1) death due to hostile action and more than two thirds of the deaths were due to accident or illness (a problem for the military since the revolutionary war). I include the data published by the government in the table below.

I hope we can reject the trash messages that try to influence our opinions. In the current political battle the differences between the candidates are massive without resorting to biased statements that manipulate information.  

   

 

               MILITARY CASUALTIES *

                 CAUSES OF DEATH

          TOTAL                 HOSTILE

YEAR DEATHS ACCIDENT ACTION DISEASE

1992   1293     676            0         252

1993   1213     632            0         224

1994   1075     544            0         206

1995   1040     538            0         174

1996     974     527            1         173

1998     827     445            0         174

2004   1873     605         739         272

2005   1941     649         739         289

2006   1882     559         769          252

2007   1950     544         846          227

 

* Department of Defense data (published April 22, 2008)

 

Comments

Hurricane Welfare?

August 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm · Filed under Uncategorized

 

When politicians argue about “welfare” some tell us that people that qualify for welfare need to learn to stand on their own two feet. Welfare mothers, for example, need to be forced to get training and get a job. Politicians claim that If we keep helping “welfare” families, we just contribute to the problem. 

Some politicians have a “welfare” attitude concerning those unfortunate folks who have faced foreclosure in the recent home mortgage crises. Many of those who lost their homes lost thousands of dollars and all their equity. Several TV pundits have suggested that we not help the victims because they should learn from their mistakes.            
Hurricane Fay recently threatened Florida. One weather reporter noted that Fay was approaching a locale that had suffered from hurricanes before. It seems that most years the coast of the US is hit by several tropical storms. Some of these storms become hurricanes that destroy enormous amounts of property. After the damage the governor of the state affected will ask the President of the United States to declare a national emergency (which releases federal funds to help the area recover). My question is when is this help being a good neighbor, and when is it denying people the opportunity to learn from their mistakes?      
Thousands of people who sustained damage from hurricanes in the last few years have rebuilt, but the new storm season may destroy their property again. This problem also exists in areas that record a high threat of earthquakes. In areas that have recurring hurricanes or earthquakes, insurance companies will not sell hurricane or earthquake insurance. Why do so many people rebuild in a “disaster area”?  
Florida, a hurricane area, is a pretty place with generally good weather and benefits. Areas with a lovely climate are very attractive as places to live. Are those that rebuild in an attractive “disaster area” contributing to their own problem? When do we apply the “lessons” of welfare to people who chose to live in areas prone to hurricanes and earthquakes?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Honor among Candidates

August 16, 2008 at 12:04 am · Filed under Uncategorized

 

What is the most important quality in a political candidate? Candidates have made promises during elections and failed to deliver on those promises once elected. Frequently aspirants claim to have positions on issues that are beyond the power of the office they seek. Often nominees change their values after elected – usually to support some wealthy special interest group. So, how do we judge a candidate? What measure, other than their words, can we use with some confidence?
I suggest viewing the candidate’s television spots.   I have seen positive TV spots that tell us what the candidate values and what the candidate wants to accomplish. I have seen negative TV spots that attack the opponent. Often those negative spots exaggerate the opponents position and make him appear far worse that he is actually.

I appreciate the positive spots as they really help me judge the candidate’s qualifications.   The negative spots are simply not helpful. When one paints the opponent as bad news that we can not afford, I find myself offended. It seems to me that it is the job of a nominee to be honorable by delivering messages concerning what he will do, and what he believes. However, negative ads do only harm. People can be deceived into voting against a competitor who would be their best choice for the office. Doesn’t deceiving people show a lack of “honor”, show a flaw in “character”?

My solution: I will vote against any candidate who disrespects his opponent. I will speak out against an aspirant who appears to twist the opponents views and statements. I may write a special note to a postulant who I think is purposely disrespecting the opponent.

If you feel like I feel. join the effort. Look at ads, ask yourself it they are being fair, and when you judge they are not fair send a note to the candidate expressing your feelings.

Good luck to us all. The Election is getting close.

We must remember that honor is
the vital quality in a candidate.

 

 
 

 

 

Comments

Politics of Failure

August 2, 2008 at 4:22 pm · Filed under Uncategorized

How should I vote for President of the United States?

Over the past few months I have heard some strong messages from friends. Many feel passionately about several national issues, and some believe that they should vote accordingly. Some are for McCain, others for Obama. Why care which? My question is ” when was the last time a national politician did anything that I believe is important?

In 2000, I was told it was vital, because of the abortion issue to support Bush. In 2004 church leaders wrote messages concerning the importance of our vote. Many leaders talked about abortion, others the threats of gay marriage. Has anything changed. Is “gay marriage” still a possibility? Is abortion still legal? Since Roe v Wade in 1972, what progress has been made by any President to reverse the Supreme Court?

 

I have concluded that such issues are not really affected by who is the sitting President. I see no reason for getting excited about either candidate- stress is bad for one’s health.

It has been suggested that I vote based upon patriotism – who does or does not wear a lapel pin. Ever since Senator Max Cleland, a genuine hero who lost several limbs in battle fighting for America, was defeated because his patriotism was questioned by an opponent who dodged the draft, I refuse to vote on such obviously bogus rationale.

 

Some leaders have hinted that the candidates may be different morally and that I should vote based upon their religion. The Bible says in MT 7:1 “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.” Anyway both candidates are Christians, and both are “good men”.

 

 

What issues can a sitting President impact? Currently, the President may be able to affect our economy by supporting a stimulus package. The President may be able to manage the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of the current candidates have suggested a logical solution to the war, the economy, health care, or the price of gas.

I can’t find a good solution in our current political environment.

Maybe I should run for President: I hate politics; I would tell the people the truth (and hope I don’t get hung as a result); I will not spend our money because we do not have any (we are in the hole by several trillion dollars); I would never leave the White House, so I couldn’t get in trouble with foreign countries; and, finally how much trouble could I get into with my disabilities – I can’t work more than an hour or two each day. So Opa Wayne for President, he is the “non-choice choice.”    

 

 

Comments