Every day the news is so full of contentious, sad or divisive subjects. I realize that this is caused by the number of contentious, sad and divisive issues we face today. Still, there are a lot of good, hopeful and praiseworthy things going on as well. I’ve decided to make a concerted effort to write about some of those. Here’s the first.
After years of lawsuits, broken promises, citizen lobbying, heated Council debates, and outright bickering, it was recently announced that Lexington’s Lyric Theater will finally be restored and re-opened. In case you wonder what the Lyric is, where it is, and/or why it is important, let me tell you the little I know about it.
The Art Deco style of the Lyric Theater and it's marquee lit up the corner of E. 3rd Street and DeWeese Street in Lexington from 1948 to 1963. Take a look at this photo, and notice who was performing that night. The Lyric’s lifespan covered the most racially-charged in modern American history; and, the location was deep in the heart of a part of Lexington whose residents were excluded by law from enjoying so many facets of life in Lexington (especially shameful as many had just recently fought for our national freedom in WWII). It was a leading entertainment center in the community, and hosted first-run films, black films and entertainers like The Temptations, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington, Sarah Vaughan, Ella Fitzgerald, The Ink Spots, and Redd Foxx. This was truly a showplace for some of America’s greatest artistic talent. Resident Tassa Wigginton says, "This was really the community center. This and Dunbar High School were the pride of the black community."
I’ve driven through this neighborhood for years on my way to and from places. It doesn’t take 20-20 vision to discern that, like so many others, this is a neighborhood that can use a good dose of pride and prosperity. I imagine the conversations of older residents on their front porches talking regularly about how great the neighborhood used to be "back in the day." In a sad twist of irony, desegregation brought a close to the Lyric as blacks enjoyed their new freedom to visit other places of entertainment in Lexington. Despite that "freedom," poverty still looms plainly evident in this predominantly black section of town. It's the kind of area in which, probably as the result of some stereotyping on my part, I don't want to get a flat tire.
Houses stand in disrepair, commercial property is vacant or abandoned, young people stand around as if they have nothing to do; and, in all of that a passerby can easily sense an aspect of despair and grief. Perhaps not a week goes by without the local news reporting on a shooting or a stabbing in this neighborhood, either as the result of some gang violence or simply because the attacker needed some money. I’m sure that there are plenty of people in the neighborhood who are rightfully proud of themselves and their heritage; but, I can’t escape the sense that they have been left behind as progress and prosperity went elsewhere.
Mayor Jim Newberry says that the reopened Lyric will complement other work ongoing in the East End, including: plans for new recreational opportunities with the Legacy Trail, which will complement the Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden; the opening last fall of the new William Wells Brown Elementary School and its community center; significant additions in affordable housing, including the ongoing redevelopment of Bluegrass Aspendale; and road improvements. I really hope so. We all know that successful and vibrant businesses attract more of the same, and that nearby neighborhoods share in the prosperity. Prosperity brings opportunity, opportunity brings hope, and hope leads to a vision of a better day ahead.
As a city, we have poured so much money and effort in recent years to “revitalize” the downtown area in hopes of regaining the commercial and entertainment activities which served as its hallmark before the advent of shopping malls. While that effort has helped somewhat, most Lexingtonians still have a choice whether to go downtown or head out to Hamburg or Fayette Mall. By contrast, I assume that many of the people who live near the Lyric don’t have as much of a choice. Beyond the prospect of another source of great entertainment in Lexington, I’m hopeful that a new Lyric Theater can provide new life to its community.
New and expanded businesses; people making the choice to visit it instead of Cinemark from time to time; an outlet for various artistic endeavors which would otherwise have no exposure; in essence, a reason for people to actually visit this neighborhood rather than just drive through it on their way from place to place.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Opaque "transparency"
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised us a government of "transparency." Forget for the moment that he has already signed into law almost 20 bills which were not posted in full on the internet beforehand, as he promised they would be. Push aside for the moment the fact that he now wants resolution of a 1,000+ page healthcare bill in a matter of two weeks (sooner than any experienced Congressional staffer could possibly digest the same and certainly sooner than any meagerly-informed electorate could possibly deliberate the same).
Above all of that, there is word today of another troubling breach of this promise.
Despite our ever-shortening memories as Americans, do you remember what T.A.R.P. is? It's the Troubled Asset Relief Program - the debacle initiated by the president whom we all mistakenly thought to be a "conservative" and then approved by then-Senator Brack Obama. The federal government's Inspector General for that program has now told Congress that the $700 billion program may eventually end up costing the federal government (ie: those of us who actually pay taxes) anywhere from $3 trillion to $23 trillion. That's right. As we await the pronouncement that we need yet another "stimulus" package, the government's own employees (again, non-partisan) now say that we should be using multipliers of anywhere from 3 - 23 when our Congress predicts the "cost" to us.
To add insult to injury, we learned to day that the Treasury Department has "repeatedly failed" to adopt recommendations that the IG's office believes will bring more transparency and accountability to the execution of the bailout. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/20/watchdog-financial-bailout-support-reach-trillion/. I guess his definition of transparency is a bit more opaque than mine.
I might have missed the news on this one while I was working and generating taxes today; but, I didn't hear this news from the White House. No, I first heard reports of it from independent news agencies. Although, by then the White House was already busy issuing "qualifications" and "clarifications" of it. I'm sure you'll hear more polished versions of the same on your nightly news.
So much for transparency.
As Earl Pitts says, "Wake up Amurica!"
For what it's worth.
Above all of that, there is word today of another troubling breach of this promise.
Despite our ever-shortening memories as Americans, do you remember what T.A.R.P. is? It's the Troubled Asset Relief Program - the debacle initiated by the president whom we all mistakenly thought to be a "conservative" and then approved by then-Senator Brack Obama. The federal government's Inspector General for that program has now told Congress that the $700 billion program may eventually end up costing the federal government (ie: those of us who actually pay taxes) anywhere from $3 trillion to $23 trillion. That's right. As we await the pronouncement that we need yet another "stimulus" package, the government's own employees (again, non-partisan) now say that we should be using multipliers of anywhere from 3 - 23 when our Congress predicts the "cost" to us.
To add insult to injury, we learned to day that the Treasury Department has "repeatedly failed" to adopt recommendations that the IG's office believes will bring more transparency and accountability to the execution of the bailout. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/20/watchdog-financial-bailout-support-reach-trillion/. I guess his definition of transparency is a bit more opaque than mine.
I might have missed the news on this one while I was working and generating taxes today; but, I didn't hear this news from the White House. No, I first heard reports of it from independent news agencies. Although, by then the White House was already busy issuing "qualifications" and "clarifications" of it. I'm sure you'll hear more polished versions of the same on your nightly news.
So much for transparency.
As Earl Pitts says, "Wake up Amurica!"
For what it's worth.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Who's Doug Elmendorf & Why Should You Care
Guess what? The Obama healthcare bill won’t save any costs, it will raise them (and raise them more than Democrats are predicting). Says who? Says Douglas Elmendorf.
Elmendorf currently serves as the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO is not, and never has been, a partisan office. The director is appointed by the Speaker of the House and Preident pro tem of the Senate. Elmendorf was appointed this January - by ... drumroll please ... Nancy Pelosi and Robert Byrd.
Elmendorf received his undergraduate degree in Economics from Princeton University in 1983 (Summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa). He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University in 1989. One of the three members of his Harvard Ph.D. dissertation committee was Lawrence Summers (who served as chief Economics advisor to Barack Obama’s campaign and now serves as an adviser to Director of the White House's National Economic Council). Under Bill Clinton’s administration, he served as an economist for the Federal Reserve Board, Senior Economist to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department.
His expertise is in the areas of macroeconomics, public economics, and econometrics. This means he’s basically an “expert” as to how all of the different sectors of the economy work and affect each other, including the effects of governmental economic policy. He’s also never been a guest or commentator on the evil Fox News network.
But, we don't have time to listen to him. We've got a crisis; and, it needs to be fixed within 2 weeks. He's just some political hack. It doesn't matter that he worked for Bill Clinton, so did Dick Morris. It's just one guy's opinion.
I'm sure that Democrats, the White House and most political commentators will now set their sights on him and spend hours on your TV telling you why we shouldn't listen to him. But, think about this. Pres. Obama (along with Lawrence Summers) have spent months now telling us that we have to do this to keep from bankrupting our nation. They say that rising healthcare costs are causing the federal deficit and debt to skyrocket out of control. They say we have to do something now to reverse that trend before it's too late. Sound familiar? Have I hit all of the "talking points?"
So, what will they say about Elmendorf's analysis? Do you care?
Elmendorf currently serves as the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO is not, and never has been, a partisan office. The director is appointed by the Speaker of the House and Preident pro tem of the Senate. Elmendorf was appointed this January - by ... drumroll please ... Nancy Pelosi and Robert Byrd.
Elmendorf received his undergraduate degree in Economics from Princeton University in 1983 (Summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa). He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University in 1989. One of the three members of his Harvard Ph.D. dissertation committee was Lawrence Summers (who served as chief Economics advisor to Barack Obama’s campaign and now serves as an adviser to Director of the White House's National Economic Council). Under Bill Clinton’s administration, he served as an economist for the Federal Reserve Board, Senior Economist to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department.
His expertise is in the areas of macroeconomics, public economics, and econometrics. This means he’s basically an “expert” as to how all of the different sectors of the economy work and affect each other, including the effects of governmental economic policy. He’s also never been a guest or commentator on the evil Fox News network.
But, we don't have time to listen to him. We've got a crisis; and, it needs to be fixed within 2 weeks. He's just some political hack. It doesn't matter that he worked for Bill Clinton, so did Dick Morris. It's just one guy's opinion.
I'm sure that Democrats, the White House and most political commentators will now set their sights on him and spend hours on your TV telling you why we shouldn't listen to him. But, think about this. Pres. Obama (along with Lawrence Summers) have spent months now telling us that we have to do this to keep from bankrupting our nation. They say that rising healthcare costs are causing the federal deficit and debt to skyrocket out of control. They say we have to do something now to reverse that trend before it's too late. Sound familiar? Have I hit all of the "talking points?"
So, what will they say about Elmendorf's analysis? Do you care?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sotomayor should be confirmed
[Note - I penned this weeks ago but reserved it for her confirmation hearing.]
I want to make this as plain and clear as I can. Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed in a unanimous vote by the Senate; and, should not have been forced to respond to the kind of scrutiny and attacks (both personal and professional) which followed her nomination. Does that opinion surprise you? It shouldn't.
Since her nomination, my political party has taken aim at her on three main issues. First, she has spoken publicly about the fact that her Latino heritage and her gender have impacted the thought processes which affect her role as a judge (both on the trial and appellate levels). Second, decisions which she authored or joined have been overturned roughly 50% of the time. Third, she once spoke publicly about the fact that judges "make policy" from the bench (yes, I've watched the video).
So what?
Who among us hasn't been significantly shaped and affected by our own heritage? Who among us doesn't perceive our personal and professional life through the lens of our own past? I assume that by her "wise Latino" comment she simply meant that (perhaps) being part of two different minority groups causes her to be more sensitive than others to issues affecting those who have typically and historically experienced discrimination at the hands of those in power. "Sensitive to" doesn't mean necessarily "biased in the favor of." I choose to believe it means nothing more than "being watchful" of any intentional or unintentional miscarriages of justice towards a minority. Why would a nation that vigorously tries to protect the rights of the least minority have a problem with that?
I do not assume that she intentionally tailors her judicial opinions based on any racial or gender bias (and, yes, I have read some of them). My status as a Christian, conservative, white Anglo-Saxon male has also undoubtedly affected the way that I see the world. My background and life experiences have colored the lens through which I perceive events and issues. That is simply human nature. We are not robots, computers or simple mechanisms of logic. Were I a judge, I would be foolish to ignore that truth. In fact, it would be irresponsible of me not to remain cognizant of it. Keeping that truth on the table should cause me to be overly cautious in every case to make sure that my "background" didn't subjectively affect my judicial acts and opinions. They're two sides of the same coin; and, I choose to assume that every judge takes this into consideration on their way to achieve a fair and just decision. I may think differently as a trial attorney from time to time; but, as an American I must continue to believe that.
Regarding her appellate record, make nothing of it. If a judge follows the existing law, an appellate court can decide it wants to change the law. That results in a reversal; but, it does not equal any kind of admonition or criticism of the prior judge. I'm not saying that has been the case in all of her decisions; but, simply referring to a "reversal rate" is a hollow criticism (and her opponents know better).
As to the statement regarding "making policy from the bench," I have two thoughts. First, as a lawyer (and a self-styled student of American constitutional history and policy) I firmly believe that judges should not "make policy" from the bench. Our system of government specifically excluded the judiciary from that process, reserving it entirely to the province of the legislative branch. The simple reason for that was the fact that "we the people" elect our legislators but not federal judges. Passing laws is "making policy." Should the legislature pass a law with which "we the people" disagree, we retain the power to vote them out of office (and, thus, seek a change in that policy). That's one of the critical components we speak of when we so easily utter the phrase "separation of powers."
At the same time, all of the non-lawyers need to understand that this division of power hasn't been honored for at least 70 years now. Long ago our nation diverged from this way of doing things. In the meantime, nobody has found a way to revert to the original framework. Also, and most importantly, both political parties have benefited from and taken advantage of that development. Democrats and Republicans alike have used that fact to enact "policies" which they couldn't otherwise accomplish in Congress. Nobody should kid themselves about that.
That being the case, today we live in a country that develops "policy" in two ways. The first is via Congress. The second is via the Supreme Court. When the political ideology of the two are in sync, the process is seemless. When they differ, the process is contentious. In either event, the President has the exclusive power to decide who fills any vacancy on the Court. Conservative presidents might serve at the same time as a liberal Court; and, liberal presidents might serve at the same time as a conservative Court. When vacancies arise, the ideology of the existing administration will determine the appointment. Conservatives will appoint conservatives and liberals will appoint liberals.
For decades now the Supreme Court has been comprised of a 5-4 split along ideological lines. One vote always makes the difference; and, that's why each nomination is so important. The party in the "judicial minority" always looks forward to the opportunity to shift the scales; and, the party in the "judicial majority" constantly fears the day when that will happen. That's just the way it is folks. The Senate is required to approve the nomination so long as the nominee is "qualified." Basically, anybody other than the insane is "qualified" (they don't even have to be a lawyer, much less a judge, much less a good judge). That's our Constitution, plain and simple.
I want to make this as plain and clear as I can. Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed in a unanimous vote by the Senate; and, should not have been forced to respond to the kind of scrutiny and attacks (both personal and professional) which followed her nomination. Does that opinion surprise you? It shouldn't.
Since her nomination, my political party has taken aim at her on three main issues. First, she has spoken publicly about the fact that her Latino heritage and her gender have impacted the thought processes which affect her role as a judge (both on the trial and appellate levels). Second, decisions which she authored or joined have been overturned roughly 50% of the time. Third, she once spoke publicly about the fact that judges "make policy" from the bench (yes, I've watched the video).
So what?
Who among us hasn't been significantly shaped and affected by our own heritage? Who among us doesn't perceive our personal and professional life through the lens of our own past? I assume that by her "wise Latino" comment she simply meant that (perhaps) being part of two different minority groups causes her to be more sensitive than others to issues affecting those who have typically and historically experienced discrimination at the hands of those in power. "Sensitive to" doesn't mean necessarily "biased in the favor of." I choose to believe it means nothing more than "being watchful" of any intentional or unintentional miscarriages of justice towards a minority. Why would a nation that vigorously tries to protect the rights of the least minority have a problem with that?
I do not assume that she intentionally tailors her judicial opinions based on any racial or gender bias (and, yes, I have read some of them). My status as a Christian, conservative, white Anglo-Saxon male has also undoubtedly affected the way that I see the world. My background and life experiences have colored the lens through which I perceive events and issues. That is simply human nature. We are not robots, computers or simple mechanisms of logic. Were I a judge, I would be foolish to ignore that truth. In fact, it would be irresponsible of me not to remain cognizant of it. Keeping that truth on the table should cause me to be overly cautious in every case to make sure that my "background" didn't subjectively affect my judicial acts and opinions. They're two sides of the same coin; and, I choose to assume that every judge takes this into consideration on their way to achieve a fair and just decision. I may think differently as a trial attorney from time to time; but, as an American I must continue to believe that.
Regarding her appellate record, make nothing of it. If a judge follows the existing law, an appellate court can decide it wants to change the law. That results in a reversal; but, it does not equal any kind of admonition or criticism of the prior judge. I'm not saying that has been the case in all of her decisions; but, simply referring to a "reversal rate" is a hollow criticism (and her opponents know better).
As to the statement regarding "making policy from the bench," I have two thoughts. First, as a lawyer (and a self-styled student of American constitutional history and policy) I firmly believe that judges should not "make policy" from the bench. Our system of government specifically excluded the judiciary from that process, reserving it entirely to the province of the legislative branch. The simple reason for that was the fact that "we the people" elect our legislators but not federal judges. Passing laws is "making policy." Should the legislature pass a law with which "we the people" disagree, we retain the power to vote them out of office (and, thus, seek a change in that policy). That's one of the critical components we speak of when we so easily utter the phrase "separation of powers."
At the same time, all of the non-lawyers need to understand that this division of power hasn't been honored for at least 70 years now. Long ago our nation diverged from this way of doing things. In the meantime, nobody has found a way to revert to the original framework. Also, and most importantly, both political parties have benefited from and taken advantage of that development. Democrats and Republicans alike have used that fact to enact "policies" which they couldn't otherwise accomplish in Congress. Nobody should kid themselves about that.
That being the case, today we live in a country that develops "policy" in two ways. The first is via Congress. The second is via the Supreme Court. When the political ideology of the two are in sync, the process is seemless. When they differ, the process is contentious. In either event, the President has the exclusive power to decide who fills any vacancy on the Court. Conservative presidents might serve at the same time as a liberal Court; and, liberal presidents might serve at the same time as a conservative Court. When vacancies arise, the ideology of the existing administration will determine the appointment. Conservatives will appoint conservatives and liberals will appoint liberals.
For decades now the Supreme Court has been comprised of a 5-4 split along ideological lines. One vote always makes the difference; and, that's why each nomination is so important. The party in the "judicial minority" always looks forward to the opportunity to shift the scales; and, the party in the "judicial majority" constantly fears the day when that will happen. That's just the way it is folks. The Senate is required to approve the nomination so long as the nominee is "qualified." Basically, anybody other than the insane is "qualified" (they don't even have to be a lawyer, much less a judge, much less a good judge). That's our Constitution, plain and simple.
Monday, July 6, 2009
If You're Reading This
This week the world will pay tribute to Michael Jackson in a star-studded, multi-million dollar, internationally televised event. Taking nothing away from his achievements or the tragedy of his death, I wish that we spent equal time memorializing fallen US soldiers.
Regardless of politics, they died in the pursuit of freedom - whether for us or for someone else. I wish we were as concerned about the families and children left behind by their deaths as we are about who will gain custody of Jackson's kids or who will share in his fortune. Financially, his kids will never want for anything. The children of soldiers who will never come home face a very different future.
As far as we know, the King of Pop left no last letter to his loved ones. In contrast, this music video to Travis Tritt's moving song includes portions of real last letters from soldiers who came home as cargo rather than as passengers. Rather than focusing on how entertainment moguls and idols feel about Michael's death, why don't we spend some time staring into the faces of the families in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNZnZ6NiTdg&feature=related
If you're reading this, you just finished celebrating the 4th of July. If you're reading this, you might have taken a day off work, attended a patriotic concert or parade, or watched some fireworks. If you're reading this, today you re-enter your daily life. If you're reading this, you owe some tribute to fallen soldiers who preserved your freedom to do all of this. From the Revolutionary War, to Normandy, to Afghanistan, to numerous missions we will never hear about, we owe this freedom to them. Regardless of politics, they're still not coming home, their families continue to grieve, and this wasn't just another "holiday weekend" for them.
Regardless of politics, they died in the pursuit of freedom - whether for us or for someone else. I wish we were as concerned about the families and children left behind by their deaths as we are about who will gain custody of Jackson's kids or who will share in his fortune. Financially, his kids will never want for anything. The children of soldiers who will never come home face a very different future.
As far as we know, the King of Pop left no last letter to his loved ones. In contrast, this music video to Travis Tritt's moving song includes portions of real last letters from soldiers who came home as cargo rather than as passengers. Rather than focusing on how entertainment moguls and idols feel about Michael's death, why don't we spend some time staring into the faces of the families in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNZnZ6NiTdg&feature=related
If you're reading this, you just finished celebrating the 4th of July. If you're reading this, you might have taken a day off work, attended a patriotic concert or parade, or watched some fireworks. If you're reading this, today you re-enter your daily life. If you're reading this, you owe some tribute to fallen soldiers who preserved your freedom to do all of this. From the Revolutionary War, to Normandy, to Afghanistan, to numerous missions we will never hear about, we owe this freedom to them. Regardless of politics, they're still not coming home, their families continue to grieve, and this wasn't just another "holiday weekend" for them.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Iraq withdrawal?
The international media (and the White House) are in love with themselves over the fact that American troops have today "met the deadline" for withdrawal from Iraqi cities. Everyone touts this as some sort of achievement of the Obama administration. I tend to disagree and relish the chance to educate the less-informed.
Let it be known that simple Google searches will verify everything which follows.
The key point here is the use of the word "cities." Iraqis do not think of resuming control of their country based on whether American forces are located within city limits. They think of "provincial" control, much as we would think of "state" control. If, in the event of civil unrest, Kentuckians were not in control of Kentucky, then we would not be in control. If the forces providing control were located within the city limits of Lexington or in the rolling farmland of Jessamine County, it wouldn't make any difference. If, after having achieved a state of calm, that force turned over control to Kentuckians and then relocated their bases to Jessamine County, what difference would it make? Would that be considered a retreat?
The fact is that 13 0f 18 Iraqi provinces (the only bases of power in Iraq short of national government) had already been turned over to the Iraqis before Barack Obama was even elected. This was accomplished under directives from the Bush administration. For the last two years, American military commanders have realized and admitted publicly that they should relocate their bases to rural areas outside of city limits.
They, not the Obama administration (which hadn't even come into existence), decided this was proper in order that ordinary Iraqi civilians didn't have to deal with the presence of American troops on a daily basis. Their thinking (not Obama's) was that they could provide the same level of support from 10 miles away while reducing their daily "footprint" among the civilian population. Being located just outside of a given city, our technology being what it is, they knew that they could confront any threat just as quickly as if their base was in the heart of downtown. They also considered that by relocating to rural bases they could reduce the chance that civilians might be injured or killed by attacks on American troops and compounds.
For years, as is easily verifiable, the American forces have known that they should relocate their bases outside of urban areas. Aside from looking to transfer provincial control as soon as practicable, they have simultaneously been working to relocate outside of urban areas since before Barack Obama was even nominated by his party. If the American forces have today completed their withdrawal from "cities," it wasn't as the result of anything that President Obama did. In fact, no Americans have left Iraq presently. They simply relocated their bases to a position just outside of each city in which they were previously located. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Their just a Blackhawk, Chinook or Little Bird away from any situation in which they're needed. The same guys are still there, doing the same mission, releasing control to the Iraqis as they're able, just like they were long before Barack Obama was even a glint in the eye of the American voters.
Let's give credit where credit is due, and reject those who would usurp it.
Let it be known that simple Google searches will verify everything which follows.
The key point here is the use of the word "cities." Iraqis do not think of resuming control of their country based on whether American forces are located within city limits. They think of "provincial" control, much as we would think of "state" control. If, in the event of civil unrest, Kentuckians were not in control of Kentucky, then we would not be in control. If the forces providing control were located within the city limits of Lexington or in the rolling farmland of Jessamine County, it wouldn't make any difference. If, after having achieved a state of calm, that force turned over control to Kentuckians and then relocated their bases to Jessamine County, what difference would it make? Would that be considered a retreat?
The fact is that 13 0f 18 Iraqi provinces (the only bases of power in Iraq short of national government) had already been turned over to the Iraqis before Barack Obama was even elected. This was accomplished under directives from the Bush administration. For the last two years, American military commanders have realized and admitted publicly that they should relocate their bases to rural areas outside of city limits.
They, not the Obama administration (which hadn't even come into existence), decided this was proper in order that ordinary Iraqi civilians didn't have to deal with the presence of American troops on a daily basis. Their thinking (not Obama's) was that they could provide the same level of support from 10 miles away while reducing their daily "footprint" among the civilian population. Being located just outside of a given city, our technology being what it is, they knew that they could confront any threat just as quickly as if their base was in the heart of downtown. They also considered that by relocating to rural bases they could reduce the chance that civilians might be injured or killed by attacks on American troops and compounds.
For years, as is easily verifiable, the American forces have known that they should relocate their bases outside of urban areas. Aside from looking to transfer provincial control as soon as practicable, they have simultaneously been working to relocate outside of urban areas since before Barack Obama was even nominated by his party. If the American forces have today completed their withdrawal from "cities," it wasn't as the result of anything that President Obama did. In fact, no Americans have left Iraq presently. They simply relocated their bases to a position just outside of each city in which they were previously located. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Their just a Blackhawk, Chinook or Little Bird away from any situation in which they're needed. The same guys are still there, doing the same mission, releasing control to the Iraqis as they're able, just like they were long before Barack Obama was even a glint in the eye of the American voters.
Let's give credit where credit is due, and reject those who would usurp it.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Suicide
It's an ugly term derived from Latin meaning "the taking of one's own life." I don't know how many of you have dealt with this issue; and, if so, on what level. I make no presumptions that I know anything more or have experienced anything more deeply than you have. Yet, I am today just beginning to rationally deal with the choice of a good friend to make this dreadful decision. This is a first for me.
So many blessings, so much to live for, so much to expect - snuffed out so quickly as present but known pain succombs to an eternal and uncertain void. At least it's some comfort to "know" that he had accepted Christ. Still, in those final moments, did he really "know" that?
We can all relate to pain. We can all relate with occasional feelings of hopelessness. We can all relate with the temporal thought that our present suffering might never be relieved. Still, I don't know a living soul who can truly relate with the decision to end it all. While I struggle to understand those feelings, I cannot understand the thought process which leads from those feelings to the most selfish of destructive acts.
Despite my own questions, I am consumed with compassion for the deceased. I can't imagine the level of pain and/or depression which eventually leads one to pull the trigger. What level of pain could cause one to inflict such lifelong injury on those whom he loved the most? It defies reason.
If you've been affected by this occurrence, please know that you're not alone in either your suffering or your questioning. If you're considering this outcome ... don't. Just don't. Reach out in your weakness. Reach out and seek answers from those who don't have them. Reach out for solutions from those who cannot offer them. Reach out to those who can do nothing but reach back. Reach out before everyone else is left remembering you.
So many blessings, so much to live for, so much to expect - snuffed out so quickly as present but known pain succombs to an eternal and uncertain void. At least it's some comfort to "know" that he had accepted Christ. Still, in those final moments, did he really "know" that?
We can all relate to pain. We can all relate with occasional feelings of hopelessness. We can all relate with the temporal thought that our present suffering might never be relieved. Still, I don't know a living soul who can truly relate with the decision to end it all. While I struggle to understand those feelings, I cannot understand the thought process which leads from those feelings to the most selfish of destructive acts.
Despite my own questions, I am consumed with compassion for the deceased. I can't imagine the level of pain and/or depression which eventually leads one to pull the trigger. What level of pain could cause one to inflict such lifelong injury on those whom he loved the most? It defies reason.
If you've been affected by this occurrence, please know that you're not alone in either your suffering or your questioning. If you're considering this outcome ... don't. Just don't. Reach out in your weakness. Reach out and seek answers from those who don't have them. Reach out for solutions from those who cannot offer them. Reach out to those who can do nothing but reach back. Reach out before everyone else is left remembering you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
