As some of you know, we do a radio show on the Internet (http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com) on Wednesday evenings. A couple of weeks ago, a news story came out that talked about an upcoming documentary that ridiculously suggests a Secret Service agent may have fired the second shot at President Kennedy.
That caused us to re-interview Sherry Fiester, a forensics expert who's studied the JFK killing in great depth. That, of course, made me think of the Kennedys and the so-called Camelot period in U.S. history.
A few years after the president's assassination, Robert Kennedy ran for the presidency, from his position in the U.S. Senate. Bobby Kennedy toured the country and went to some of the poorest areas of the nation (including Appalachia) to bring attention to how the country was neglecting the poor, whether they were poor Whites, Blacks, Browns, etc.
The problem of homelessness wasn't very common in the 1960s, but it became very noticeable in the 1980s and many people talked about the people who lived on the streets for the next 10-15 years. There were news stories, magazine pieces and documentaries.
But no one's talking about this problem anymore.
So we obviously solved this problem, or people would still be concerned, right?
Apparently not. If you go into any reasonably-sized community, especially those in the sunbelt during the winter, you'll see them. The folks who live on the streets and are or aren't on drugs, who are or aren't mentally disabled are around us. The nicer people among us may give them a quarter or a buck from time-to-time, while the rest of us tell them to get a job or claim we lack sufficient resources to give them anything.
Many of us just ignore them.
But more shocking, in at least the last two election cycles, no one's mentioned the homeless. No one, whether liberal or conservative seems to give a damn about either these people or the social problems their existence represents.
If this were 1968, surely someone would say something. If no one else, it would've been Bobby. For those who think assassinations don't have much effect on history, let them look at homelessness. Let them look at Bobby. Let them see Appalachia.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Syria - Additional Thoughts
That the United Kingdom, through its Parliament, decided it would not intervene in Syria (at least for now) by striking against the government for use of chemical weapons, comes as no surprise.
What was a surprise and disappointment is that President Obama decided to seek Congressional approval before we made a move against Assad's government.
While I generally support Obama, this step demonstrates (dare I say "again"?) a lack of courage or intestinal fortitude. The other phrase isn't suitable for work or children. We don't have a parliamentary system. While Congressional approval should be sought in many situations, every other president has stated that the War Powers Act that was passed after the Viet Nam insanity, in unconstitutional.
The fact that the president isn't required to seek Congressional approval for this strike is clear. We are not going to war; we're talking about a single bombing or drone attack.
All of the above said, I recognize that some very intelligent people, including my lovely bride, think we shouldn't attack Syria. While I disagree (see immediately prior post), I understand. These people (other than those who disagree with anything and everything Obama wants to do, just because it's Obama who wants to do it) fear that Syria may react against Israel, for example - or that Hezbollah or Iran may - and that would require a response from us and Russia and China could respond, etc.
While that's possible, it's obviously unlikely that China and Russia would want to be involved, directly or by proxy, in a military engagement with the U.S. Still, there are dangers connected to an attack on Syria.
My opinion, however, is that there's a greater danger in doing nothing.
As said in the prior edition, if we allow chemical weapon use to go unpunished, it encourages - or at least fails to discourage - those who will be tempted in the future to use them. And that's a very unacceptable risk.
Getting back to the president. I understand that he wants Congressional approval so that no one can later claim, should the situation deteriorate, that he was acting on his own. But he doesn't have to run again, and leaders with courage act.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Two little bits of self-advertisement here. Since internal links don't seem to work, if you'd like to take a glance at my three e-books, please go to the first posting in this blog. It will let you see those books and order them, if you'd like. The three books are a guide to mobile home investment, a compilation of the columns I've written on the subject of sex for a local magazine, and a mystery novel which kind of involves Robert Kennedy. Unrelated to that novel, so does my next posting. Secondly, if you haven't please give a listen to our radio program. It's at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com. We're live on Wednesday nights and you can call in, if you listen live. You can also listen to the archived recordings of the show at any time, though you obviously can't call in if you're not listening while we're "on air."
What was a surprise and disappointment is that President Obama decided to seek Congressional approval before we made a move against Assad's government.
While I generally support Obama, this step demonstrates (dare I say "again"?) a lack of courage or intestinal fortitude. The other phrase isn't suitable for work or children. We don't have a parliamentary system. While Congressional approval should be sought in many situations, every other president has stated that the War Powers Act that was passed after the Viet Nam insanity, in unconstitutional.
The fact that the president isn't required to seek Congressional approval for this strike is clear. We are not going to war; we're talking about a single bombing or drone attack.
All of the above said, I recognize that some very intelligent people, including my lovely bride, think we shouldn't attack Syria. While I disagree (see immediately prior post), I understand. These people (other than those who disagree with anything and everything Obama wants to do, just because it's Obama who wants to do it) fear that Syria may react against Israel, for example - or that Hezbollah or Iran may - and that would require a response from us and Russia and China could respond, etc.
While that's possible, it's obviously unlikely that China and Russia would want to be involved, directly or by proxy, in a military engagement with the U.S. Still, there are dangers connected to an attack on Syria.
My opinion, however, is that there's a greater danger in doing nothing.
As said in the prior edition, if we allow chemical weapon use to go unpunished, it encourages - or at least fails to discourage - those who will be tempted in the future to use them. And that's a very unacceptable risk.
Getting back to the president. I understand that he wants Congressional approval so that no one can later claim, should the situation deteriorate, that he was acting on his own. But he doesn't have to run again, and leaders with courage act.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Two little bits of self-advertisement here. Since internal links don't seem to work, if you'd like to take a glance at my three e-books, please go to the first posting in this blog. It will let you see those books and order them, if you'd like. The three books are a guide to mobile home investment, a compilation of the columns I've written on the subject of sex for a local magazine, and a mystery novel which kind of involves Robert Kennedy. Unrelated to that novel, so does my next posting. Secondly, if you haven't please give a listen to our radio program. It's at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com. We're live on Wednesday nights and you can call in, if you listen live. You can also listen to the archived recordings of the show at any time, though you obviously can't call in if you're not listening while we're "on air."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)